While I'm not suggesting you leave Hatrack, I am more than willing to suggest that you leave the empty posting to this forum. Also dedicated to Orson Scott Card, and more geared toward your very unique style of posting, The Philotic Web is far more likely to accept your very unique method of expression than Hatrack is. Not to mention, you're far more likely to find friends of your own very unique persuasion at this resource.
By all means, don't leave Hatrack. If you have intelligent or insightful contributions to make, please, enrich our lives with them. Just move your emoticons and (((hugs))) to P-Web. For the sake of Hatrack's collective sanity (or, at least, our collective IQ), I beg you, take the last-post thread there. Take the hugging thread there. Take the damned emoticons there. I promise you, parties all around will be the happier for it.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Maybe you should campaign to have the name of this forum changed to "Books, Films, Food, American Culture but no smilies 'cos some of us don't like them."
Just a thought.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Ha ha! Good idea!
I don't have a problem with emoticons. What I do have a problem with is irresponsible use and abuse of the damn things, especially when used in conjunction with the mind-numbingly idiotic threads that seem to have populated the forum in recent months.
I promise you, P-Web is far more open than I am to these sorts of very exciting and very unique methods of communication. Plus, you get colored text, and your very own pictures in your posts! Anything you want! Really, if people here get off on bright colored heads, they'll be in a 24/7 state of orgasm at P-Web.
Posted by Pepek (Member # 3773) on :
Hahahahahahahaha....
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Maybe you should campaign to have the name of this forum changed to "Books, Films, Food, American Culture but no smilies 'cos some of us don't like them."
And we could, like, have a symbol of a kitten with a big, red 'X' over it. Awesome idea.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
But Eddie, if the smilies were gone then we couldn't all use our favourite response to your posts: Posted by Pepek (Member # 3773) on :
Or just a cute kitty head with a puddle of blood underneath it.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I had a look over at the Philotic Web. Somehow I think I'm staying here.
(The only problem with a total ban on smilies is I'm never quite sure whether people will understand when I'm gently mocking / joking. I guess I just have to be content that my dry yet witty tone will come through... )
:Edit: Though I guess I could just end my posts with j/k.... :
[ November 23, 2003, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
The name of the forum does not need to change, it is already "Books, Film, Food, and American Culture", it is not "Books, Film, Food, American Culture, and Giving imaginary hugs and mindless accolades to people who are essentialy just a name on an online forum".
Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
quote: Giving...hugs and mindless accolades to people who are essentialy just a name
Isn't that part of "American Culture"? Greeting cards, etc?
Posted by Pepek (Member # 3773) on :
It's part of American Culture... Not Hatrack forums..
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Lalo, I once thought you to be harsh, irrational, and pityless, but telling them to go to pweb? Thank you for reaffirming my beliefs. I was getting a bit worried there.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
...said the man who originated from the depths of P-Web.
T, does this mean you disagree that these empty, emoticon-and-hug-intensive (but very unique) posts aren't perfectly suited for the similar climate of P-Web?
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Oh no, they are totally appropriate for pweb. In fact, I'm pretty sure they would out-smilie them over there. But they are just so... worse at pweb.
I didn't originate from Pweb, you fool. Migrated over there once or twice maybe....
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Same difference. Once a P-Webber, always a P-Webber. It's rather like saying I trafficked with the Devil only once or twice...
Not that this should discourage you potential P-Webbers. I promise you, if you enjoy posting brightly colored heads, you were born for the place.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
And as an addendum to my original post, I'm not supporting a total ban on emoticons. The original dozen we had are, when used in moderation, perfectly appropriate for conveying a feeling. But the Gay Train and the Post-Apocalyptic Mutants need to go. As does the Toupee Man, the Seven-Up Spots, the Whore, Sleeping Beauty, the Enslaved California Grape, Satan and his Twin Brother, the Crack Addict, and no doubt several others.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
I have to agree with Eddie on this one.
Hatrack is a good place, don't get me wrong, but pweb is a little bit younger, more smilies, and suited for fluff. And don't get me wrong, pweb can be entertaining on a certain level, which is why I sometimes visit.
But I like the Satan guy...
[ November 23, 2003, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: T_Smith ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Can someone point me to a thread that started off serious and was lead of track via smilies? I mean I know that there are plenty of fluff threads that have a whole bunch of smilies, but I can't remember any serious threads that got off track because of the smilies.
And just so you know, anyone who opens up "8 smilies in every post" deserves what they get.
Hobbes Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
If they got rid of the enslaved Californian Grape then maybe OSC and Kristine Card could post more often without fear of being graped to death...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Smilies is art. Art is culture.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
And culture is mould.
(well, in some circumstances...)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's just lovely the methods some of y'all use to debate. It's not bad enough that you dislike smilies, you must inflict your views on EVERYONE.
And you have done your best to tar everyone who likes the new smilies with the "unintelligent, uninsightful, idiotic, mindless" brush.
quote: Can someone point me to a thread that started off serious and was lead of track via smilies? I mean I know that there are plenty of fluff threads that have a whole bunch of smilies, but I can't remember any serious threads that got off track because of the smilies.
I'd like to see an example, too.
Y'all are just going to hate "8 Smilies In Every Post Day."
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Of course, emoticons are art. And such art deserves its own museum for spectators to come and cherish.
Nobody's getting banned. But if people could very uniquely express their very unique personalities through very unique emoticons at P-Web, the IQ of Hatrack would be saved from decline, the suffering, very unique artists would be saved from persecution, and old curmudgeons like everyone who doesn't very uniquely express themselves through emoticons wouldn't have anyone to pick on. Everyone's happy!
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
"Gee, Eddie," says one of the founders of Philoticweb. "Glad the pweb kids have a place to go where people like you won't insult them."
That is, in a lot of ways, exactly why that forum thrives. People like you make the younger folk feel unwelcome and insecure. Not every person who loves Ender's Game feels comfortable at Hatrack.
When we created Philoticweb, like OSC with Ender's Game, we had no idea that our forum would gain such a young group. But we are actually quite pleased with the result. Thnere is already a Hatrack. Doesn't need to be a second one. But being able to provide a service for the young adults in OSC's audience in a good thing.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Were you referring to me, Rivka?
I knew this would happen!
quote: The only problem with a total ban on smilies is I'm never quite sure whether people will understand when I'm gently mocking / joking.
I'm going back to using smilies. Much safer. Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
You've put it a bit nicer, now.
I don't post there much. I'm a housewife, writer, programmer person who is already well into her life. Their issues aren't necessarily my issues.
But mess with them and I'll go mama tiger on you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Nope, imogen.
Hence my careful use of a bolded "some." Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Ok then.... just checking Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Unwelcome and insecure? Gosh, I hope not. But if these kids can't express themselves except through the very unique mediums of the emoticon, by all means, why not let them very uniquely express themselves through the service you've just claimed to offer to the young adults in OSC's audience?
I have no problem with people discussing Ender's Game, or anything even remotely intellectual. And I'm not asking that Hatrack turn into Ornery-Lite. But god, save it from becoming a P-Web-Lite.
God forbid these kids feel unwelcome and insecure. If they have opinions -- or anything even remotely resembling an intelligent stance -- let them express it. If they have a funny to make, let them make it. But I'm not sure that Hatrack is better off cluttered with moronic threads very uniquely expressing their very unique opinion of " ." Are you?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, gosh, Lalo.
How else are we supposed to balance out the bitter, cranky sniping?
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
With MORE bitter cranky sniping!!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*ponders*
Nah, I like the other way better.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Duh.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Also, you don't "balance out" bitter, cranky sniping with idiocy. You do so with intelligent posts that point out the logical fallacies of bitter, cranky sniping. Not by further infuriating the bitter, cranky snipers.
But, by all means, balance out P-Web's bitter, cranky snipers with emoticons. Heh. The place could use more.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Amka: Well said. And seriously, Hobbes and Rivka are right. Smilies never derail serious threads. In fact, they are rarely even used in serious threads. Like Rivka said, if you open a thread called "8 smilies per post" then you're just asking for it.
That said, ban the Gay Train. Now.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Earth to Eddie:
It's not your forum. Most of the people I get along with best from Hatrack don't even post here anymore. So what? It wasn't smilies that drove them away. I'm pretty sure it was things like life... And stupid threads that insult a large percentage of Hatrack's community. While I rarely post in fluff threads and, at times, I find myself irritated that it can be hard to keep an interesting thread on the first page, I also think that it's great that Hatrack has brought so many people from so many different places and walks of life together in a way that has become essential to so many lives. If continuing that means smilies and fluff then so be it.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
My point exactly, EG. I want to keep Hatrack from becoming a homogenized mess of very unique idiocy. Hatrack's attraction, to me, has long been its balance between intellectualism and humor. Emoticons and (((hugs))) fall under neither category, and serve -- at Hatrack -- for little other purpose but simpleton amusement and space-wasting.
By all means, introduce new opinions and new people. Keep the old people. But when anyone, old or new, wants idiotic fluff, move them the hell to P-Web and let them post pretty little colored heads to their hearts' delight. Who does it hurt, exactly? More to the point, what parties involved does such a plan not help?
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
The thing we value most about Hatrack is the community it has fostered. If it just becomes a place of "anonymous" posters who never feel the need to add a little emotion every now and then, I don't think it would be worth the time or the money or the aggravation of dealing with people who start a thread only to complain about other people. So, a tip of the hat to you Lalo and a big hug to all those people who have made this a place where people dare to share their emotions as well as their opinions without fear of being stomped on. That's the kind of place that makes me way happy Kristine
[ November 23, 2003, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: kacard ]
Posted by Black Mage (Member # 5800) on :
Here's an enslaved grape for you. Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Eddie: I agree with you (and Ralphie, Pat and Tom on the other thread) that smilies can be used rather excessively. At the same time, I really don't think they need to be banned... I think it's more likely that the community is simply changing along with the Interweb demographic in general. Old buggers like us are just getting outdated.
*shrug*
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:God forbid these kids feel unwelcome and insecure. If they have opinions -- or anything even remotely resembling an intelligent stance -- let them express it.
Just for everyone's edification, the minimum requirements for an intelligent stance is one of Lalo's. After that, the sky's the limit!
BA-DUM, DUM! Thank you, thank you, all be here all week!
-Bok
EDIT: Drat, upstaged by the host!
[ November 23, 2003, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:If it just becomes a place of "anonymous" posters who never feel the need to add a little emotion every now and then, I don't think it would be worth the time or the money or the aggravation of dealing with people who start a thread only to complain about other people.
Again, my point exactly. Perhaps I'm alone in this, but my not-very-unique self has trouble telling the difference between people whose only communication with the board are very unique emoticons. While I can't stress just how very unique these posters are, nor how very unique I'm sure they are as people, I have no idea how to tell them apart.
I don't mind emoticon use. Bob_Scopatz uses them on occasion, and he's one of the most intimate and intricate members of Hatrack. The major difference between Bob and the gaggle of emoticon-users, however, is that Bob actually contributes more to the forum than a very unique Gay Train.
Like I've repeatedly stated, I'm not looking to get anyone banned. But if people, for whatever purpose, wish to contribute little else than Post-Apocalyptic Mutant Hugs, I'm sure they'll find that function better served at P-Web than at Hatrack.
Do you disagree, Kristine?
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Yep, I disagree. If you don't like those threads, don't go there. If you don't like smilies, don't use 'em. Maybe I haven't seen the threads you are worried about, but if there is something specific that you think is so over-the-top it's hurting the community, then let our charming moderator know about it, and we can deal with it. But if it's just about keeping it more grown up around here -- then I disagree with that too. Young people are very welcome here. Sometimes they have a learning curve about what is acceptable, but a little patience and some kindness from the old crowd usually helps them adapt pretty soon.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The problem, Ed, aren't the smilies. The problem is that the 'serious' posters aren't that prolific. I wrote about this some time a go. People actually started trying to make more 'serious' threads, and you know what? They only got about 12 or so responses. Look at poor Mr. Squicky. He probably makes the best all around posts, but because they are so well constructed and they raise so many good points, people don't respond to them that often.
I think smilies and serious posts can and do coexist. As others have said, I haven't really seen smilies derail a thread yet. The fluff threads haven't gotten any more numerous, they're just being started by different people.
I think what we're seeing is the 'greying' of the 'serious' Hatrack population. Most of us have had certain arguments over and over again. We've heard what the other side has to say. So, there are less 'serious' threads because there is less need for them.
I'm not saying that we don't need more 'serious' threads. Golly, no! I am saying that perhaps the emphasis should be more on the non-fluff posters posting more 'serious' stuff if they want more serious stuff instead of on the fluff people to stop posting fluff.
There is room for both sides here.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I don't disagree that there isn't room for fluff at Hatrack. I'm just worried that fluff is overwhelming -- if it hasn't already overwhelmed -- Hatrack. And I think the playing field can be leveled to a great extent by getting rid of useless and obnoxious emoticons like the Gay Train or the Dancing Seven-Up Spots.
They were a sweet gift, Kristine, but utterly impractical. Thank you for the consideration, but I really must request that you remove them. If people have a need to express their very unique opinions through very unique emoticons, they're more than welcome to do so at P-Web. Somehow, I don't think many at Hatrack will be deprived of enlightenment.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: But the Gay Train and the Post-Apocalyptic Mutants need to go. As does the Toupee Man, the Seven-Up Spots, the Whore, Sleeping Beauty, the Enslaved California Grape, Satan and his Twin Brother, the Crack Addict, and no doubt several others.
I have only one sentiment:
AJ
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Lalo, what we're trying to tell you is that we so far have not seen any negative effect from the smilies, and if people like them, why would they be removed for no cause? I'd be interested in you detailing exactly what you think the smilies are specifically doing that would not happen without them.
Hobbes Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Eddie, do you feel like you have any more right to be here and be yourself than anyone else on the forum? Do you feel like you're in a place to say you "really must request" anything and have your wishes honored?
It's baffling to me. Frankly, if "serious posters" means members who have been here so long that they think they can dictate what people should and should not do around here, then I sincerely hope I'm not counted as one of them.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
What a story!
[EDIT: Wait! My post just jumped in front of Ela's, whose post I was responding too. ]
Hobbes
[ November 23, 2003, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I like Pweb (and Amka, the esteemed Goddess thereof).
I like smilies.
I like Hatrack.
And I totally disagree with you Lalo.
The End.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
And, by the way, I object to the constant putting down of pweb that I have been observing on this forum. It's not nice and totally unneccessary. If you don't like pweb, don't go there. If you can't say something nice, don't say anything.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Eddie, do you feel like you have any more right to be here and be yourself than anyone else on the forum? Do you feel like you're in a place to say you "really must request" anything and have your wishes honored?
It's baffling to me. Frankly, if "serious posters" means members who have been here so long that they think they can dictate what people should and should not do around here, then I sincerely hope I'm not counted as one of them.
"Serious members," to me, means members that contribute more than a very unique emoticon. I don't mind restrained idiocy, if it's a mild presence on Hatrack -- however, while I've never participated much in fluff, the growing number of threads whose sole reason for existence is to show how pretty certains breeds of emoticons are has irritated me and driven several people away from posting. Among the very few who have posted about emoticons (out of respect for privacy, not citing those who have not posted their concerns), Jeni, Pat, Toni, and myself have all expressed disinterest in posting as a result of Hatrack's declining IQ. And considering those members' worths, I feel it's a crime that such unique personalities as Toni and Pat are being replaced by personality-less (though, I'm sure, very unique) emoticons. I don't mind the posters posting anything worth reading, but pages upon pages of idiocy are better suited to P-Web.
People can do whatever they want. But if they're so utterly fascinated by their ability to post pretty heads, why not do so at P-Web, where nobody will be irritated, the very unique artists can express their very unique abilities, and everyone will be happier?
If they have anything that requires thought, by all means, they're welcome to post it here. But if they need to masturbate through the use of pretty colored heads, P-Web's open to that kind of mess.
Hobbes, this is one of Toni's posts from the other emoticon thread. I don't think I could express my own feelings better.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So I'll have to forgive your continued intolerance for "fluff." I live in hope that some day you will understand. (((((Ralphie))))) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, Rivka, it's not the fluff. Like I said, when you get all fluffy it doesn't bother me. I've been known to indulge in fluff from time to time.
I think it comes down to this:
In every relationship people have to put in what they take out, or the other party will eventually become resentful that they are being taxed without any compensation. Fluff has it's place on Hatrack, just like serious debate does, and I appreciate them both for what they are.
Then I see what I can only imagine are kids sign on, give NOTHING to the community in the way of debate, unique perspective, intelligent conversation or even comedic value but rather jump from thread to thread, topic to topic, littering the place with banal smilies*, instant message-like "banter" and basic derailment to talk about what maybe all of three people want to talk about. And it usually comes down to NOTHING.
When the fluff is relegated to a few threads, and it's pretty obvious which threads those are, that's fairly benign and pretty much expected. When people feel they need to make nothing but fluff threads, or WORSE, infect non-fluff threads with their tired campaigns of pro-smilie something somethings, then they are taking away without any intention of giving back.
I'm not a curmudgeon. Good gravy, I barely post anything myself that couldn't be catagorized as fluff in the narrowest terms. But my hope is that I don't simply take from the forums, and that I do my part (like you do, and countless others) to add to it and keep the checking account balanced.
I mean, isn't that the whole point of Ralphie Luv™?
(*which are not even fulfilling their intended purpose, which is to assist people in conveying how they feel or what they mean as we are limited in expression, tone and mannerisms on the net.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Y'know, I miss everything around here!
When was Lalo appointed Emoticon Cop?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
See the thing with Ralphie's post is that it sounds more like a general attitude she's objecting to. The use of the forum as an extension as AIM instead of a more controlled arena. I certainly understand and sympathize with this view, but I don't see the smillies as a cause. Certainly the smilies are used in cases like this but it's very hard for me to believe that they're actually the cause of this attitude. If you want to campaing against the "IM factor" of this board I wont stop you but I just really fail to see the new smilies as causing a break down in serious communication on Hatrack.
Hobbes Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
You still didn't answer my first two questions.
While it's SUCH an honor to have brilliantly eloquent non-emoticon-using "serious posters" in the community, none of you have the right to say that if certain things are eliminated from the forum, or if certain people leave, than "everyone will be happier." If you don't want to post anymore, if smilies really and truly make you not want to post, then just don't.
rivka: I have no idea.
nice delete Eddie.
[ November 23, 2003, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by Psycho Triad (Member # 3331) on :
Is it just me, or does it seem like "smilie gestapo" in here...
Lighten up! If people want to use em, they have all rights to. If you don't like them, dont use them
The whole flooding of them will subside at some point.
Chill Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
Hobbes: Raphie and Eddie are objecting and speaking about the samething.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I know, I was responding to Ralphie's words that Lalo quoted... I thought I was responding to both of them at the same time that way, was I not?
Hobbes Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:You still didn't answer my first two questions.
While it's SUCH an honor to have brilliantly eloquent non-emoticon-using "serious posters" in the community, none of you have the right to say that if certain things are eliminated from the forum, or if certain people leave, than "everyone will be happier."
Gosh, Narnia, it's almost as though you haven't read a single post I've written. Nobody's asking anyone to leave. Only, if they feel the need to masturbate with dancing colored circles, to do it at P-Web. How many times need I repeat that actual opinions or feelings or questions should be and are welcome at Hatrack?
quote:If you don't want to post anymore, if smilies really and truly make you not want to post, then just don't.
Thanks for the swell advice, Narnia, but I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about people that are worth keeping, like Pat and Toni and Jeni, being driven away by the declining Hatrack IQ. If you don't think it's a crime that such quality posters are being replaced by legions of dancing colored spots, I have trouble believing you met Toni at the Portland signing.
Also, there's absolutely no need for a clash over this. If people feel the need to ejaculate emoticons, why not do it at P-Web and save Hatrack the bandwidth of supporting hundreds of meaningless threads of this?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:See the thing with Ralphie's post is that it sounds more like a general attitude she's objecting to. The use of the forum as an extension as AIM instead of a more controlled arena. I certainly understand and sympathize with this view, but I don't see the smillies as a cause. Certainly the smilies are used in cases like this but it's very hard for me to believe that they're actually the cause of this attitude. If you want to campaing against the "IM factor" of this board I wont stop you but I just really fail to see the new smilies as causing a break down in serious communication on Hatrack.
From Toni's post:
quote:Then I see what I can only imagine are kids sign on, give NOTHING to the community in the way of debate, unique perspective, intelligent conversation or even comedic value but rather jump from thread to thread, topic to topic, littering the place with banal smilies*, instant message-like "banter" and basic derailment to talk about what maybe all of three people want to talk about. And it usually comes down to NOTHING.
And yes, I don't see the emoticons as a cause of idiocy, only an enabling tool. If you leave a gun among kids, someone's going to get shot. If you leave pretty colored spots available to kids, someone's going to abuse them.
I don't mind emoticons, as I've said over and over again. I do, specifically, have a problem with these emoticons -- other emoticons, while they still have potential for abuse, are far less distracting to readers (and thus far less attractive to those who post them).
Do we need the following emoticons? If people need to express their very unique feelings through legions of these very unique emoticons, doubtless they can do so at P-Web.
No doubt Hatrack could go without the others, including others I formerly declared intolerable, but I'm willing to tolerate them if they're used in a meaningful way. But these, with their incredible potential for abuse (which has been acted upon time and time again) need to go.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:nice delete Eddie.
Nice character attack, Narnia. Why don't you tell everyone what I deleted?
I mean, don't you think they'll be shocked that I deleted two posts containing eight emoticons apiece?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: two posts containing eight emoticons apiece
Yes, the 16 emoticons that His Royal Laloness has decreed acceptable. Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
I suppose the reason the smilies become a focus, Hobbes, is because they're animated (and more than the little bit of animation in or or ). They're distracting - and as Frisco pointed out elsewhere, most of them are essentially a pictorial representation of a phrase, not an expression of emotion.
*shrug*
I'm guessing that what bothers people most is that these smilies offer so much more in the way of conversation without saying anything. With the old batch, if people were getting antsy in a thread, someone could say, "Hey, everyone - " or something. Now, that can be (and often is) followed up by fifteen different variations on the same theme involving various (all and sundry) new smilies. It encourages people to just click the smilie they want a few times rather than respond carefully to posts.
Personally, I only object to the Gay Train, the Mutant Party, the Free Love Fest and Tupee Man. The others I can live with, but those ones really drive me up the wall.
But hey, that's just 5% of the smilies on my uni's theatre society forums. Of course, they have the Drunken Maniac smilie so I like those Posted by Psycho Triad (Member # 3331) on :
For some reason, your fervent arguing over something so trivial as this sickens me. Not that a discussion is bad. Go right ahead and discuss it all you want. But it seems like you're doing everything short of crucifying people for using smilies.
Whats the term I've heard used in the past? Troll?
Not to say that i'm totally against what you've said. TheWave smilie has been slightly overused, and the random silliness has increased. But telling people to go away just because of it (meaning to another forum or whatever) is just plain rude. Bite your lip, suck it up, whatever. Just get over it.
Oh, and have a nice day. Life is too precious to spend it grumbling at people through a forum. In case ya missed it the first time..
quote: Lighten up!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Maybe the charecter attacks could stop from both sides...?
Lalo, when you say the smilies are like a gun among children I don't exactly understand what you mean. Exactly who is getting shot when they go off? They obviously aren't causing what you see as poor quality posts, so it's not like that could be an effect. It sounds to me like you've admitted that they really don't cause anything, they just are used more often than you want. Is this true or am I putting words in your mouth?
Hobbes Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Oh, and can we cut with the PWeb bashing? I mean, I don't post there either but others do. Jatraqueros made that place and many people there probably found it for the same reason most of us are at Hatrack. I remember when Amka, Adam and co. launched PWeb a few years ago and I remember them telling us all how much work they put in. Why slander the hell out of it? Just CUT IT OUT. It's not fair, warranted or nice. Just. Stop.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Thank, EG, that's what I was trying to say too, above.
[ November 23, 2003, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Lalo, when you say the smilies are like a gun among children I don't exactly understand what you mean. Exactly who is getting shot when they go off? They obviously aren't causing what you see as poor quality posts, so it's not like that could be an effect. It sounds to me like you've admitted that they really don't cause anything, they just are used more often than you want. Is this true or am I putting words in your mouth?
That's more or less what I've been saying from the beginning, Hobbes. When I say the existence of brightly colored, super-animated emoticons among certain people is like putting a gun among children, I mean that people are going to use and abuse those emotions just as surely as children are going to use the gun.
Getting rid of just a few of these emoticons would go a long way toward lessening the number of empty threads. While I've never been a fan of fluff, I'm not intolerant of it -- but lately, it seems fluff is all Hatrack is. Am I the only one disappointed by that, or is everyone willing to let Hatrack enter this decline and watch as Hatrack devolves from the special forum it once was to just another fluff forum, like every other forum online?
I was proud of "finding" this place, once. I was glad to be a member, and I looked forward to reading people's posts. Now, more often than not, I wonder if there's been a single interesting post worth time and attention. Maybe I'm finally becoming that dreaded adjective, mature, but it's so much more difficult to look forward to reading Hatrack when I know there'll just be pages upon pages of brilliance like (((Hobbes))) or *dances with Hobbes*. Am I alone in my disappointment?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
It seems to me that you can take an intiative to make this community what you want it to be. Just start threads you want to see and then you'll have topics you want to talk about. A community is as good as its members, just be the type of member you would want to have as the foundation of this community and it seems like it would solve your problems. Or maybe I just can't see how awful these smilies really are.
Hobbes Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
It seems my response to Psycho Triad has been deleted. It wasn't rude or profane, so I'm assuming the moderators (Kristine?) deleted it because they're sick of discussion over the topic.
Ugh. Come to think on it, so am I. Since I realize the thread's little more successful than Sisyphus getting the boulder up the hill, I'm going to quit the argument. Here's hoping Hatrack doesn't entirely succumb to idiocy, and the intellectual aspect can survive despite the prevalence of very unique expressions of very unique emoticons.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
My mistake. I posted this in a different thread by mistake. Psycho Triad, this post was written before my 11:09 post and addressed to you.
quote:Not to say that i'm totally against what you've said. TheWave smilie has been slightly overused, and the random silliness has increased. But telling people to go away just because of it (meaning to another forum or whatever) is just plain rude. Bite your lip, suck it up, whatever. Just get over it.
So this is, what, the eleventh time I've said this?
There's no need for anyone to go away. If and when people continue posting pages of idiocy here, no doubt I'll ignore it as I always have and eventually let Hatrack fade out of my life, as others have. But I'm asking, I'm requesting that we get rid of a certain few emoticons. If people feel the need to make pretty faces, they can do it at P-Web -- which, while not to libel the place, seems a far more suitable place for less intellectual threads. If an opinion needs expression, or a question needs asking, I don't mind it being posted here, regardless of how I feel on it. What I do mind being posted are these seemingly endless fields of emoticons, which serve little purpose than simplistic amusement to the easily amused, and easy annoyance to the not so simplistic.
Is it so much to ask that people move the Last Post Thread -- the purpose of which seems to be observance of how long it can be made -- or the EIGHT SMILIES FOR EVERY POST thread to P-Web? Is it persecution? Is it harassment to ask them to move their very unique threads full of very unique expressions to a different forum, and use Hatrack more as a tool for actual opinions and thought?
Posted by Abrynne (Member # 5826) on :
I know I'm new on here and I'm not a very 'seasoned' Hatracker but I have lurked for quite some time on here and I must say that this board has more drama and irrelevant arguments about stupid tiny insignificant things than any I other message board I have seen. (And I am a member of several other boards on a viriety of subjects) When I went to the OSC signing in Portland he said that the people who read his books are automatically more civilized. I'm wondering if he would change his opinion if he saw certain threads like this. I can't believe that people are actually suggesting discrimination against emoticon users. Some people may not have seen it that way but when you get right down to it that is exactly what it is. For myself I don't mind the emoticons. They are simply a way for people to express themselves other than the plain text. I am also shocked to learn of the actual 'hierarchy' that has formed on this message board. We should remember that this is only a message board made for anyone who wants to express their opinions ideas or find a release. It is not made for people to form a dominion over the newbies or those who don't post as much. There is no rank that is determined by your number of posts or the date on which you joined. The only solution that can be reached is for people to grow up and attempt to be civil. Message boards are not intended for this kind of unnecessary drama.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"There is no rank that is determined by your number of posts or the date on which you joined."
But I cannot tell you how many times I have wished that there were.
Okay, yeah, I can. Just once, right now. But you have to admit that it WOULD be fun. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*sighs* You're getting paranoid, Lalo. It wasn't deleted -- you posted it to the wrong thread.
Understandable, really.
I think I'll leave my reply to your (now moved) post right where it is.
[ November 23, 2003, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I would just like to say that I prefer this thread INFINITELY more than a thread about how some teenager's parents suck or, say, a "post yourself nude!" thread.
I may not completely agree with Eddie on this one (especially after considering other's viewpoints,) but I'd still rather read this VERY rational discourse than a thread littered with insults and references to the weight and sexual preference of someone's mother.
Hatrack may not be my cup of tea anymore, but it's still a good place to go for clean discussion.
[ November 23, 2003, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Primal Curve ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Yeah, fun for you with the obscenely low member number and high post count.
Maybe post counts should automatically get wiped every two weeks... Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:If people feel the need to make pretty faces, they can do it at P-Web -- which, while not to libel the place, seems a far more suitable place for less intellectual threads.
If you have a complaint, Lalo, make your complaint without reference to pweb. What goes on here has nothing to do with pweb, and as long as you keep making remarks like that, you are "libeling" pweb.
CUT IT OUT!
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: with insults and references to the weight and sexual preference of someone's mother.
Y'know either I'm missing something or you're on a whole different forum to me.
(Edit - so I was missing something. Guess I had a 50/50 chance... )
[ November 23, 2003, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I think that's what he means, other forums have a lot of that where's Hatrack has rational discussions about emoticons.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, I solemnly promise I wouldn't abuse my power. Much. I mean, not TOO much. All the smilies would have to be little pictures of my actual face -- which is very round, I swear, so they wouldn't change an awful lot, except maybe by being a little less colorful or inclined to comical distress. But that's it.
There are REASONS why Hatrack has no governmental structure. The image of us oldbies running the place is about thirty of 'em.
The kids do a fine job of keeping the place light-hearted, and while smilies annoy the crap out of ME, it's not like the comic pages; there's no zero-sum space limit, where Ziggy means we can't have Opus.
So if SOME people still like Ziggy -- i.e. the hug thread -- they're welcome to it. The Internet keeps getting younger, and Scott is deliberately marketing his books to a younger audience, and young kids today DO have a slightly less literary slant to their online communication, so this is just one of those cases where I'm perfectly content to be curmudgeonly in a cheerfully impotent way, waving but not actually wielding the Crotchety Cane of Correction.
[ November 23, 2003, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Maybe post counts should automatically get wiped every two weeks...
But then there would be no landmarks.
Or, worse yet, people would be trying to hit 1000 posts within two weeks! Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Two good points. How about randomly fluctuating member numbers instead? One minute I'm member #5485, the next thing I know I'm #150.
That way supremacy is swapped around...
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
quote:Understandable, really.
WTF?
quote: I am also shocked to learn of the actual 'hierarchy' that has formed on this message board
You shouldn't be you lock 3 people in a room together an a hierarchy will form,
quote:When I went to the OSC signing in Portland he said that the people who read his books are automatically more civilized. I'm wondering if he would change his opinion if he saw certain threads like this.
No he wouldn't because if he did he would be an idiot.
quote:Message boards are not intended for this kind of unnecessary drama.
Yes mom we will behave now.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
SS said:
quote:I think what we're seeing is the 'greying' of the 'serious' Hatrack population. Most of us have had certain arguments over and over again. We've heard what the other side has to say. So, there are less 'serious' threads because there is less need for them.
I would agree with this. I'd also like to hypothesize that Hatrack is reacting sort of like the country did after 9/11. Seeking a comic relief, in light of the tough times faced by our community members (everything from the war to the economy to the agressive posts of ex-Hatrackers.)
I miss coming to Hatrack to find out what's happening in the world. I miss Baldar vs Tom debates on economy and politics; Wolverine's unique take on everything; Eddie's staunch support of minorities and the environment.
I don't miss wondering if the real people behind these screen names have been hurt or have hurt someone else's self-image by a well-placed phrase.
IMO Change and cycles are not only okay, but facilitate growth. I think the only thing that would irrevocably un-make this community is if the Card's decided not to impose their subtle influence on the community's growth.
I don't post much anymore either. Not because I hate emoticons or object to the little shields around a screen name, but because hanging-out here is a luxury for me. And though I love the thought that I can reach-out and help a stranger through a hard time, my first responsibility is to my friends and family who claim first dibs on my time.
As far as Pat and Ralphie go, boy would I miss them. Pat is such a fixture and Ralphie is, IMO, the emodiment of the best of Hatrack. Super intelligent, slightly ironic, warm, funny and above all else, tolerant of other points of view.
Don't go away guys, the tide will change.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Message boards are not intended for this kind of unnecessary drama."
I missed this quote before, and I just have to say that it makes me almost miss the days when anyone who talked about a newsgroup or message board was referring to a BBS or USENET. I think I speak for all of us who remember USENET fondly when I say that message boards were pretty much created to be a home for this kind of unnecessary drama. Posted by Polemarch (Member # 3293) on :
But if it were swapped around, it would no longer be a sign of supremacy. People would find other ways to be elitist.
Edit: woah, you people move fast. This was in response to Imogen.
[ November 23, 2003, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: Polemarch ]
Posted by Polemarch (Member # 3293) on :
Hey, Luthe? Care to post substanitial opinions backed up by logical evidence, rather than merely post random insults, abreviated obscenities, and attacks on character? I may agree with (what I guess is) your point (that Lalo is being a bit rediculous in his smilie hating/putting down of smilie users) (is that your point?) but it doesn't mean you can be generally inflamatory like that.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
"This is NOT a landmark post."
Actually, Abrynne, while I get almost as annoyed by these self-policing threads as I do the smilies-gone-Godzilla-on-Tokyo threads, it is the fact that these self-policing threads exist that makes Hatrack more civilized than the various boards, web sites, Usenet groups, yahoo groups, heck, even political rallies, that I occassion. Unlike other boards, where a forum like this would normally be split into separate sub-boards (at least one for politics, another for just generally shooting the breeze, and probably another for computer stuff) we get a great cross-section of people here, all doing their thing, to various degrees of success, all under the umbrella of this boards explicit and implicit charters.
Other sites I've seen would have let a board like this end up super-moderated, either due to the site owner, or overwhelming user request; or moderation by favoritism; or the people would laugh and cast users like Eddie or rivka (as examples) into essential social banishment, since the general population wouldn't really care enough to listen to complaints and try to work it out themselves. Or people would get a little ticked and go off on someone and then leave, quickly forgotten as one in a long line of people.
Hatrack is more civilized than those boards. The mark of civilization to me is expressed by the extent with which a community will balance a defense of its symbols of community with a desire to expand and grow and add, modify and, if necessary, delete its symbols. Not just the moderators, nor oldbies, nor newbies, but all the community dwellers.
Anarchy is the total detachment of social responsibility; even the total detachment of the idea that such a responsibility is necessary in a place like this.
But this is also just a web board. The problem with things like this is that they require such a low level of effort to start into. That's also the solution.
Personally, I think Eddie's gone too far. The smilies are here to stay. The Hatrack community has become so large that no one can really know everyone anymore (heck, I thought deerpark had stopped posting months ago!). Or at least, too large for me. I mean I'm faily plugged in, as far as Jatraqueros are concerned. I know the lingo, been in para and AIM chat, sent emails to folks, IMed them, visited PWeb, Ornery, and a couple of the other Jatraquero-made boards. I've been to a Hatrack Picnic. Heck, I've even been known to read and post to that *other* board on this site (as well as participated in VBS and Hatrack 1830s, long ago) about that author-guy! As a result the community is no longer a subset of me, I'm a subset of it. I see that. I accept it. Not everyone can simply accept it, it agitates them so. I think them complaining (though I think one thread is sufficient) is fine, though disparaging is not (PWeb is cool by me).
There have been threads and users and posts that infuriate me; in the past, the present, and no doubt the future. So it goes. Some days, or even weeks, I find little I can add to. Some things bore me; some things seem awfully childish to me. Sometimes I go into a thread, knowing the discussion won't change a single mind, but put up the good fight, because I feel my 2 cents must be heard, even if only disregarded. Some times I am energized by new discussions.
I think I'll end here, I don't know what I'm supposed to write next.
-Bok
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You forgot the homage to me.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Psst. You have to read between the lines... It's there. Along with the next 10 days of Lotto numbers.
Don't say I never did nothin' for ya!
-Bok
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It's strange you would recruit the reputation of Pat to your argument of why smilies should be deleted as he is a chief abuser of multiple screen names. (not that I haven't done it, I just think it is a major detractor from the seriousness of the board.)
Back in March when I joined, and there was the "message from your Janitor" thread, I pointed out that the same factors pushing some folks out of hatrack were pulling others like myself in.
While I don't agree with you, Lalo, I have to admire your single minded determination to defy "the man" or at least "the man"'s wife.
Just one voice singing in the darkness
Dang. I'm sure Pat is better with Barry Manilow lyrics than myself.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know if I still have standing to really say anything about the dynamics of this place, but, hey, Storm said something nice about me above, so even if I'm almost never here and most of the people now posting don't know who I am, that's gotta count for something.
One thing I find kind of ironic (and I say this with no ill-will) is that Pat and Ralphie are part of making an issue about this when a large part of the annoyingly not funny humor from - jeez - a long way back was their constant back and forths. I don't think anyone ever said anything, mainly because most of the people were inside the group that thought it was funny and most of the outsiders like me didn't really care.
I think we're seeing the formation of a new social group around here. It's been common to call people who visit this site jataqueros. For me, that served better as a label for a certain clique of people who were central to the social life of the forum, who were generally the only people to ever use the term. I think there's a new group of people who are forming a different type of social life. They generally seem to be on the younger side and they don't have a name yet, but I want to humbly suggest "The Smiley Brigade"...either that or "MrSquicky is so freakin' sweet!" Come on, it would look great on a t-shirt...or a coffe mug.
Anyway, I don't really like smilies. I think I may have used one once, because I was making a joke that could have totally been taken the wrong way and I wanted it clear that it was a joke. I'm not sure if I used it even then. I find the new ones more annoying because of the big animations and I wish that I could freeze them by pressing ESC like you could when they were first introduced. I don't generally frequent any of the Smiley Brigade threads, because I don't get anything out of them.
However, that's fine. I didn't get anything out of most of the jatraquero-centered threads. Or dobies, which I still regard the on-line equivilent to America's Funniest Home Video. (No seriously. I've been working on a Mozilla plugin to turn all dobie thread titles into Hans Moleman being hit in the groin with a football.)
The thing is, people do get something out of them. I say, more power to them. It doesn't bother me that people are doing things here that I don't enjoy. People always seem to be doing things that I don't enjoy, often to my girlfriend when I'm out of town...or in the other room.
I certainly didn't semi-leave Hatrack because of I wasn't interested in a majority of the threads here. It became for me an issue of putting in effort and not feeling like I was getting much back in return, which leads directly to the idea of quality.
Despite the golden age talk, I don't really think that there was ever an abundance of quality here in either humor or "serious" discussions. Not at least when I was around. Quite honestly - especially in regards to "serious" topics - I don't know how many people even agree with me as to my definition of quality.
I always hoped that Hatrack could develop into an intellectual community where I could come to learn new things and contribute to shared attempts to build something. At one time, I bent quite a bit of effort towards trying to foster that type of environment. I left(the first time) when I couldn't even sustain interest in a book discussion.
I'm not around now because people don't seem to desire the type of quality that I'm looking for. "Serious" in regards to topics seem to refer to those where people snipe at each other and it doesn't look like to me like anyone is working towards anything different. I'm not sure how many times it took of my trying to create an interesting topic that people could build together and have it receive as many single (often 2 or 3 line) responses as a post like "if ur a momron ur religon is stoopid!" got pages of responses. There just seems to be very little collaborative or explorative spirit at Hatrack and also little discrimination as to quality of people's arguments.
Ok, I'm going to put an end to the self-indulgent whining now. My main point is this. I don't think people leave because there is a lot of low quality stuff here (and almost all social bonding stuff is going to be low quality. Quality is a very much a secondary goal when you're doing social bonding and can even interfere.) I think they leave because there is little high quality stuff.
If you want to have a place that is not typified by people posting smilies at each other, the answer isn't to try and get people to stop doing that, but rather to provide something different. Posting high quality of your own is what will make people want to be around, not discouraging low quality.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
A demonstration of high quality posting...all I can say to that is MrSquicky is so freakin' sweet!
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
Hatrack goes pretty much without any formal moderators, or well the ones we have don't have to do much. This is because there are a set of accepted social norms that are in use at hatrack. Hatrack is moderated by peer pressure, peers in this case being other hatrack members.
An example of this is back when I actually spent time here in Januaray after the first LotR movie came, many of the women here were somewhat taken with orlando bloom's character Legolas, and I post a link to a person's webpage who was claiming to be Legolas, this person had pictures of scantily clad women, on his webpage. This in turn pissed alot of people off, because some how nearly nude women, are far more objectable that a shirtless Elijah Wood. There was much talk of how our hosts might not like there site being used to promote what was, in some people's eyes porn. The relative merit of the link I posted is not the issue at hand, what is however is the reason I deleted that thread. I deleted it because people disliked the contents linked inside, not because anyone with any ability to actully do anything said anything.
This only works because of the power to delete or edit posts lasts forever, there have been members that have deleted or attempted to delete every post they ever made under a given user id since they foolishly choose there real name and did not want any prospective employers to find the posts. If I was without the ablity to delete my own thread, it would have festered and never died till the mods locked it.
Given this loose uncentralized form of moderation on this forum. Eddie's is attempting to stem the tide of what he sees as unacceptable behavior, by changing the popular opinion of the board. In this case I agree with him (this is a one time thing, I will strive to not let it happen again). This unacceptable behavior is manifested by the const over use of some of the newer graemlins. This is not the issue simply a symptom of it. The actually issue is the overwhelming number of fluf threads that are created, and the way they detract from the inteligent discussion that used to be present on this forum.
Solutions that have been suggested are for eddie to simply take the lead in posting more topics that he would like to discuss. This I am sorry to say will not work, the habit of many here at hatrack is to post links to the previous threads that have discusses the same or remotely simalar topic, killing the discussion in the new thread which promptly falls off the first two pages never to be seen again.
The only thing that will help there to be more meaningful stuff here is if people want that, I would think that jugding from the response to the two threads about the gay parade, that that is not what most people want. Most people seem content to leave hatrack as it is. With the signal to noise ratio so high there is damn little signal left, and what signal does make it through is corrupted by static. And that is sad.
quote:
quote:quote: I am also shocked to learn of the actual 'hierarchy' that has formed on this message board
You shouldn't be you lock 3 people in a room together an a hierarchy will form,
Hierarchies of people will form regarless of the location as long as there are people around to form them. That anyone would be shocked to learn this just fooling themselves. It remains that anyone who has been here longer will have more power, more sway over the board wide opinion that moderates this place. There is nothing that anyone could do to change that. Removing the user id numbers and the post count would make it invisible, but would not change anything about how people listen to Tom D., or David B. Why? because anyone who has read these boards for any period of time will have learned that who can articulate there opinion through text efficently and who can make the precise arguments to make the conversation interesting, people know who they agree with most of the time, even if none of these things are ever said people will still know them even if the never admit them to themselves. By reading their post we have come to know the person, or the person that they present to the board.
Which brings me to hugs, a hug is act of affection between two people that is not nearly as intimate as a kiss. This "(((<receiver>)))" is not a hug, that is parens around a user name. A user name that represent, form most of us an unkown entiety. (While there are member of the board that have met, or otherwise know each other, I am assuming that they are the minority) If the near constant background noise about young girls being encouraged to meet perverted men in chat rooms is not sucfficent to make you at least wonder a little about anyone who you know only online, I do not know what is.
quote:
quote: When I went to the OSC signing in Portland he said that the people who read his books are automatically more civilized. I'm wondering if he would change his opinion if he saw certain threads like this.
No he wouldn't because if he did he would be an idiot.
This is the truth, the relative merits of OSC's statement asside, this thread changes nothing. The Hatrack forums have been around for years, this is mearly one thread out of thousands.
The posts bitching at Eddie for his supposed mistreatment and damage to the Pweb reputation are some of the moderation by group that I was talking about earlier.
But in the end it is worth noting that Eddie has succeded in his goal if you wonder, if this pointless game, or request for accolades that you plan to post in the next days, really needs its own thread, or does it fit in with some of the other floatsam already drifting on the hatrack sea.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I always hoped that Hatrack could develop into an intellectual community where I could come to learn new things and contribute to shared attempts to build something. At one time, I bent quite a bit of effort towards trying to foster that type of environment."
If you recall, Squick, I told you at the time -- in threads, and once in E-mail -- that this was kind of doomed to fail.
The reason, though, isn't that the people on Hatrack aren't intellectual enough, or aren't interested in Making; it's that, for almost all of us, the kind of Making you describe, and have always envisioned -- position papers, referendums, and debates littered with footnotes and hyperlinked definitions of psychological and sociological terms -- is not the kind of Making necessarily best-suited to an open discussion board.
Redskull tried this on Ornery, too -- and others have tried this since -- and it was a dismal failure there, as well. For the same reason. And that reason is this:
In a forum chat environment, people are unnerved and even slightly irritated by people who take themselves seriously. Even if that person means well, it's IMPOSSIBLE to avoid sounding pompous. It's like the kid in the cafeteria back in high school who sat at that one card table with the "Save Africa: Donate Your Milk Money" banner.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You know, I could forgive the fact that you never donated your milk money, but tying my shoelaces together was really unnecessary!
Posted by OrneryMOd (Member # 5242) on :
If you don't like emoticons and like serious discusions all around, Ornery is the place for you.
OrneryMod
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
What if you like all things in moderation?
I think Eddie may have put it in a way that offends people, but there is soomething to the idea that Hatrack is/was/can be the middle ground. There are people who are offended because Eddie put down PWeb. There are people who are offended because Eddie put down smilies and silliness. Soon somebody will put down Ornery, and some people will be offended. Can I be the first to say that Navou stinks?
Is it possible to convey, without giving offense, the thought that silliness is very popular at PWeb--much as seriousness is the norm at Ornery? And not so much that any people or any threads or posts should leave here and go to any other forum, but that many of us like Hatrack being a middle ground, where there is some seriousness and some silliness, and some personal stuff as well, and would like it to continue to strike that sort of balance?
If I have failed and given offense, then please accept my apologies and believe me when I say that I am not trying to be insulting.
[ November 24, 2003, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I always hoped that Hatrack could develop into an intellectual community where I could come to learn new things and contribute to shared attempts to build something. At one time, I bent quite a bit of effort towards trying to foster that type of environment. I left(the first time) when I couldn't even sustain interest in a book discussion.
Irami tried this too. It does not work.
Not in the least because you were trying to create a world where you think you thrive. Changing the rules of social engagement to one which fits your own social inclinations. More power to you for trying, but people change social habits when it brings something to them, not for the sake of altruism.
In other words, if you are going to ask people to change, there needs to be a reason.
It's like saying "I dissaprove of you. Change to [this] so I will approve of you." When there is no initial relationship, it won't happen. When there is an initial relationship, it is manipulative and destructive.
You have to accept people for who they are. They won't change for you.
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
I'm new around here so my opinion may not mean much but I have to respond. I find it interesting that the person who is doing all the complaining about "serious" threads being in jeopardy would post a profile like this.
Now perhaps this is your real proffession but more than likely it is good natured humor and fun. And hey, good natured humor and fun is all good, in smilie form or writen form. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ic- do you really not know how to spell nauvoo or what that... what was it? Pat dissed Nauvoo, I think it was in the religiousness and friendship thread, and I think Hatrack is a good place for Mormons living in Utah. For Mormons not living in Utah, Nauvoo can be good. Even though I live in Utah, I grew up outside and can enjoy Nauvoo. Though I haven't been spending much time there, as I was post-count Whoring here.
Just 'cause something doesn't float your boat doesn't make it evil. I guess that's all many of us have been trying to say. Getting a wedgie about it and putting other forums down is like pride/nationalism.
Edit: Ic, I don't meant to presume you are a mormon living in Utah. That was based on Pat's comments. Pat also works at the Des News. Try living in a downtown neighborhood for 11 years. That will diversify your brain.
[ November 24, 2003, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
pssst, pooka! He was joking.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Yeah, but it's downtown SLC. Does that count?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
O_O
[Sarcastic response suppressed]
Pooka, you really have misinterpreted my point. In fact, you have interpreted it to be the precise opposite of what I was saying.
Was I unclear--though I really had thought I had been clear--or did you just glance at my post? I'm asking because I can always edit my post to make it clearer.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
I just thought your post was mighty lame, that's all.
[ November 24, 2003, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Pat ]
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
quote:I'm new around here so my opinion may not mean much but I have to respond.
You are missing the point. Everyone wants you to respond, we value you response, Your response is what we want, just because you have less than 1500 post does not mean that your opinion is pointless noise ignored by the rest of us.
Reply, do it often and with more content than
(((<Thread Starter>))))
While post like that maybe fun, like masturbation to much of anything insipid and meaningless is not good for you.
quote: I find it interesting that the person who is doing all the complaining about "serious" threads being in jeopardy would post a profile like this.
Eddie has never said that he dislikes jokes, hates them want them all to go away. His problem (and correct if I am incorrect ed) is that the shear number of jokes and meaningless fluf has overwhelmed any intellectual enjoyment that is possible here.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Just another voice in the crowd...
I guess it should be obvious from my member number that I'm not a Hatrack old-timer. By the time I showed up here, there were too many people to know everyone, and things now are much the same. But, to my (then) outside eyes, there was a certain core of regulars, maybe fifty or a hundred, who posted way more than anyone else, who really defined the community. To me, anyway. And I wanted to be one of those people.
These days it's not like that anymore. It was inevitable, really. A place like this can, does, and must attract new members, and as that happens, there will be more and more new regulars. And given that the rate of growth seems to far exceed the rate of attrition (which speaks to the broad appeal of the forum), the character and dynamic of the community changes. And that must be a good thing, because if this weren't a great place, it wouldn't grow so quickly.
Still, I find myself becoming more and more disenfranchised with Hatrack. I miss the old days. Isn't it ironic? I haven't even been here long enough for there to have been "old days" in my time, and I still use that term. I've been as prolific a fluff-poster as the next guy, so I can't be too critical without becoming hypocritical, but I am finding myself less and less interested in the fluff these days. There aren't any Ralphies or Pats or even Jon Boys these days. Not even Ralphie, Pat or Jon Boy.
And that gets to the heart of my sadness with the New Hatrack. My memory of my Hatrack youth is a memory of synergy. The fluff-oriented posters were funny, and that gave other people the opportunity to be funny. It gave me a chance to be funny. It was like a big sparkling chain reaction. I don't see that now. I don't feel it. I don't have the same opportunities to build off of other people, and so I don't have the same opportunity to grow. So I'm less than I once was. And there's no way that I can be happy about that.
Still, change is inevitable, and rather than sighing about what once was, I'd be better off trying to find the best of what there is now, and being happy about that. I suppose if that fails, I can always retreat into the swamps of Sakeriver and hope that things go better over there.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*sigh*
The battle lines are drawn. Clearly, I posted for naught.
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
quote: You are missing the point. Everyone wants you to respond, we value you response,
Although I agree that most people may believe this I have noticed there are a number of "old timers" here who believe that their post counts makes them something special and that until you can match their count your opinion is not all that important. Fortunately, the opinion of self important people rarely bother me or stop me from stating my mind.
quote: Eddie has never said that he dislikes jokes, hates them want them all to go away. His problem (and correct if I am incorrect ed) is that the shear number of jokes and meaningless fluf has overwhelmed any intellectual enjoyment that is possible here.
My point was that it was obvious that he has a sense of humor and that in having that he should allow for others to enjoy themselves how they see fit. I personally find most of the smilies to be annoying but oh well. If you are concerned about only engaging in meaningful conversation then only go to the topics that look interesting to you. It is easy to figure out if the thread is going to be worth a crap or not. This is a big forum with room for many different types of people. Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I miss my photoshop threads. Those were good times.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Pat were you replying to me?
Were you joking?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Although I agree that most people may believe this I have noticed there are a number of 'old timers' here who believe that their post counts makes them something special and that until you can match their count your opinion is not all that important."
Really? I'll give you ten bucks if you can name one.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'll be that one, if you'll give me a cut of Tom's $$.
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
Sorry to break the news to you Tom but in my short time here at the Forums you have not exactly come across as the winner of the nice guy of the year award. Maybe it's just me who has noticed this but sadly I doubt it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Beat, I'm not even in competition. But if you resent the fact that I am in all ways your natural superior, please keep it to yourself. j/k
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
Tom, that has actually got to be the first funny thing I have seen you post.
But I must say it would be very difficult for you to be my superior in hair loss. For a man my age I am definately above average!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I've never seen anyone pull out the old-timer card for anything other than a joke.
There are many old-timers that make definitive statements and expect them to be believed - is this what you are referring to? That's not a function of seniority, though. Those people were obnoxious from the beginning. Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: Those people were obnoxious from the beginning.
That was a pretty definitive statement.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Why does everyone have to be nice to be a valuable member of this community??
Seriously, everyone is going to find someone that causes some strong disagreement, and lack of niceness (hint: it usually is due to the political stances involved). Yet they still contribute to the board.
I mean, take Icarus for instance!
-Bok
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
Icarus -- it was pointed at you, and yes, it was an attempt at humor.
Look guys, Hatrack is what Hatrack is. At one time I had hoped it was more than a passing fad in my life, that it was more than a silly internet site I came to to entertain myself in the presence of others. The people here seemed more real than anywhere else, and the conversations reflected that. It was the only place where I could talk about abortion, then post in a two-word thread. Smilies were for emphasis, not the entire conversation.
But it's natural that the demographic has changed, and while it's sad for the codgers, it's absolutely exciting for the newbies, and I say, more power to them. Let them have something that we built. Let them make it into their Hatrack.
It's like High School, in some ways. There comes a time that you move on, yet have great memories of what were great times.
And come back for reunions every once in a while.
(And by the way, I still have more posts on my Patrick login than my Pat login. I have always thought that striving for a high post count was Lame.)
[ November 24, 2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Pat ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, that has actually got to be the first funny thing I have seen you post."
Now THIS depresses me. I mean, sure, call me egotistical, and my colossal ego allows me to just brush it off. Say I'm illogical, or rude, or brash, or domineering, and I'll roll my eyes and walk away.
But I'm not FUNNY? *blink* Not FUNNY? Sheesh. Kids today.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Sorry to take your name in vain so profusely, Pat, but it was in response someone else invoking it. If you read my landmark you might get an inkling why I've always been hypersensitive to your omnipresence.
So were the multiple personalities from before or after you (Pat) gave up on Hatrack as a meaningful pasttime?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's ok, Tom. Why, you were funny just the other day . . . or maybe it was the beginning of last week?
*wanders off to sift thru old posts*
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
So I was not the first to notice that Tom wasn't funny.
And Tom, I am not a kid.
msquared
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
If you haven't noticed Tom's brilliant sense of humor, you're not looking hard enough.
And pooka, to which thread are you talking?
[ November 24, 2003, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Pat ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, part of me wants to point out the whole "kids today" thing that piqued msquared -- who doesn't think I'm funny -- was actually meant as a joke, but I remember this one thread where I spent, like, two pages trying to explain humor to Jettboy. So I won't. *laugh*
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
**remembers that thread**
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Tom
I know you meant it as a joke. I can usually tell when you are trying to joke. But as with the humor of Carrot Top, they just aren't funny.
msquared
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
msquared --
Now you're just being a troll. Hopefully you're kidding.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Pat
This is my opinion. I do not find Tom's jokes funny. I see him trying to be funny, but I never laugh at his jokes.
I like to think I have a pretty good sense of humor, but there are some comediens I do not find funny. Carrot Top is one. That Emo guy was one. For the longest time Bobcat Goldwaith was one. Gilbert Godfried was one.
Sorry, but I don't find Tom as funny as he thinks he is.
msquared
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Yeah, and let's not forget that he's the head of the Secret Liberal Cabal.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I figured you were joking. It's just that I don't know you well enough to always be sure. Like Lalo can say something completely scathing and I'll know he's joking. Same goes for Bob or Ralphie or somebody like that. So don't take it the wrong way if I sometimes ask just to be sure. Don't think I'm offended--it just means I don't yet grok your humor well enough to always know when it's humor.
Of course, it seems like you're virtually always joking, but you know how some people joke but they're still serious at the same time . . . what I haven't learned about you is when you really mean your jokes and when you don't.
Oh, and the "battle lines" post wasn't directed at you, it was directed at Pooka, who apparently still hasn't read my post and seen that I didn't mean what she thought I meant. I feel like she's already decided I'm with the other "camp" and dismissed what I said.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I don't think I've ever thought to compare Tom's brand of humor with Carrot Top or Gilbert Gottfried. Maybe Emo, but...
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
And let me just say how disturbed I was to see myself in Lalo's profile . . .
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If Tom were not presumed to be a male, his humor would be considered *itchy. This is part of why women are more likely to vote democrat and avoid fora such as ornery. To be assertive is to be dismissed as a *itch. (I am discussing the problem of the use of *itch, not calling anyone that). So yes, Tom is funny. Just not when he (we assume it's a he) is talking about you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I want my ten dollars-- I belittled Noemon in the 'Mistakal Symbolancy' thread for not having a post count as high as mine.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
I am not saying that his humor is like those people, just that my response at his attempts at humor is the same. None.
msquared
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is true. One of the most mysoginistic attitudes I've ever encountered - that men are ornery, but women are witchy.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Those people were obnoxious from the beginning. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was a pretty definitive statement.
*pat pat* That was the joke, zan.
I suppose women have the choice of either couching their words and being very careful and holding everyone's hand, or they can talk like the guys.
It really bothers me when some of the very intelligent women on this board and in the world apologize three ways to Sunday for expressing an opinion. I've noticed that some of the female BYUers do it, and I didn't understand why until I was dismissed and dressed down for something that a guy would be praised for. Gender had abosolutely nothing to with the topic; I was greatly offended that it had something to do with the response.
*shrug* I am concious of not placing the disclaimer phrases in what I say and write. Rather, to include only the honest disclaimers - the ones where I am very uncertain of what I am saying. The problem of not being honest in interaction is the feedback you recieve is addressed and pertinent to an imaginary creation. Now there's a great way to feel disconnected from the discourse.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
quote: If you read my landmark you might get an inkling why I've always been hypersensitive to your omnipresence. So were the multiple personalities from before or after you (Pat) gave up on Hatrack as a meaningful pasttime?
Omnipresence?
And yes, I've given up the whole multiple personality thing. I literally have not had access to them for over six months now. Except Trogdor. I still claim Trogdor. All the rest are dead.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*whispers* Don't give Scott the money! He'll buy tomatoes with it! Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I must be posting in dog years, then because I've only been around for eight months. But as for my question, was that before or after you "gave up" on hatrack? I'm still in the "give up" as in "cold turkey" phase of my hatrack romance.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
I never said I've given up on Hatrack. I said I think it's passing me by, and that that's my fault if that is happening.
Listen, I don't want to sit here and whine about how I long for the good ole days. I always hated it when I saw other people do it, and I have no intention of doing it any more.
I'm not leaving anytime soon.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pat, I'm glad you're here. I think I really, really needed Hatrack for a little bit. For whatever reason, I needed a place to interact with Mormon guys who weren't either courting me or rejecting me offhand as an example of what not to be. Sort of a place to figure out what that meant without needing to carefully set in place my defenses.
I don't need it now, but I still love it here. It's a little slice of my world, and I'd no more permanently leave Hatrack than I would toss out my favorite childhood books.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Tom is "assertive?" When did that happen? We're talking about the same dude who ends half of his posts with "j/k" to be sure you get it if he's kidding.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
If Tom isn't funny, then neither am I.
[insert big freakin' deliberately slow completely un-sly wink]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
A good rule of thumb for me has been to think of Hatrack as sort of the Cards' "other" living room. (I'm betting their real living room is both more interesting in decor and has nice, tasty snacks laying about. If that's not true, then don't disillusion me. )
There will be some youngsters running around and acting goofy, some romantic broken hearts pining in the corner, some geezers discussing their arthritis, and what have you. Someone is bound to be spouting some polemic over the salad course, and hopefully we all get blessed here and there by the various clergy/members of the represented religious orders.
It wouldn't occur to me to protest that the other guests were boring me or that their jokes weren't funny. I might decline an invitation to another dinner party, but that that's why they are invitations instead of compulsions. And then, if it were a large party and not easy to monitor carefully, I'd try to deal myself with Uncle Ernie's inebriated disrobing and/or Cousin Piperrete's overly salacious "adult bedtime stories" (which really aren't suitable for the wide-eyed toddlers in front). Same thing for stepping in when someone gets way out of line, such as metaphorically spitting in another visitor's face. Or when someone insults another's race, religion, or whatnot.
But you know, that's sort of my job as a grownup visitor. As far as improving the general tone and quality of the discussion, I prefer to lead by example.
[ November 24, 2003, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I attended a wedding a few weeks ago that was much much worse than any Hatrack thread I have ever been in.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
CT-
Has anyone told you today, that you are totally awesome?
If not, let me just say, "CT- You are totally awesome!"
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
(Duh, of course CT is the best. We decided that long ago - you'd know that if you had a higher post count )
I, for one, am extremely glad this site is not some kind of intellectual community of massively long posts littered with references and footnotes. Sounds like reading abridged academic journal debates. Wheeee! Seriously, I think that the great thing about the serious discussions is that it's more like having a bunch of intelligent and informed people sitting around at a dinner party and having a conversation. Everyone has a pretty good grasp of what's going on but most of them don't agree. Sometimes, someone mentions a specific source but most of the time it's really just good conversation about an issue or three. I would have left Hatrack long ago if it was a dry, boring series of essay-length dissertations.
And msquared, I'm sure that your strong bias against Tom has nothing do with the fact that you think he's not funny... It's not like you ever miss an opportunity for a bit of character assassination or anything.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Oh, Icky - it was so blatantly obvious you were being sarcastic about Navoo that the mind boggles as to how someone could misread your thread.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
EG- :::still laughing:::
Thank you for the much needed laugh on an otherwise cold and blustery day.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
How can anyone object to ing CT?
I did at least express befuddlement over the nawview comment, and quickly moved on to an example of someone who did think it stunk. Is that a word?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Is that a word?
I don't grok you.
You seemed to take exception over what you seemed to perceive as a slam of Nauvoo (sp?) on my part. I have never looked at the bulletin boards of Nauvoo; I am simply aware of its existence and relationship with OSC. I am not a Latter Day Saint, and I know that they prefer for that board to be a specifically LDS forum. I have absolutely nothing negative to say about it. I mentioned it as a joke, since people seemed to be gratuitously slamming other OSC-related boards to make their points about what Hatrack ought not be. So, actually, I was making a statement I think you would agree with: that we don't have to slam other places to express our feelings about what we wish Hatrack was.
to be continued . . .
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Having said that, I think it should be possible to express ones wishes for Hatrack without being insulting, and have people's response not be "Well, go somewhere else if you're not happy."
Note that I'm not saying that this is what happened here.
I'm simply pointing out that, underneath the hurt feelings or whatever, there actually is a topic that is worth discussing here, if we can do it without making some people feel like they are lame, and without making other people feel like they are jerks.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I, for one, think that your comments were totally in line, Ic. Those Nauvoo-ites needed to be taken down a peg or two anyway.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Sorry, I just read the last three pages of this thread. I apologize Lalo if you saw anything I said as a character attack. That's not how it was meant as I have no idea what your character is really like. It's funny because I usually avoid a 'heated' discussion like the plague. I think this one just touched a nerve because it seemed like people were being insulted.
luthe: I was at the signing. OSC said it. I think he meant that he feels like he can always count on his fans being civilized. *******************
quote: there actually is a topic that is worth discussing here, if we can do it without making some people feel like they are lame
This is a valid statement Icarus. (And did I tell you how much I like your username?! )
So what do you guys think could be done to better the community? A lot of people have voiced that they "miss the old days" when the dynamic was just different. Do you guys want to go make the forum the same as it was? Do we have specific ideas for what we want to have here? (besides banishing the smilies, we've been over that ) I'd be interested to hear what people suggest. It's always an admirable goal to want to make something better as a community.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Pssst, people ALWAYS say they miss the "old days". When I started, people missed the old days. A year later, they missed the days when I started. Now, they miss the days a year after that.
My girlfriend and I have noticed this in many things that we are involved in. We call it "Remember Tom-Toms". If you've seen the film Human Traffic you may get the reference.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Maybe in addition to a book discussion group, we could try a discussion group based on OSC's weekly and war essays.
I've seen this requested on Ornery, and I think it would be interesting here. In fact, I've noticed Tom D start this type of thread on several occasions.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I really love threads like that actually. I find that these threads aren't defined by how many pages they get to or how many posts or WHO posts on them...the fact that someone brings something enlightening and informative to my attention is part of the reason I come here.
It's also easy to see what the hot topics are. I hope people don't get offended if a serious topic drops off the first page really fast. It doesn't mean that people didn't take notice of it. It might just mean that it's not a hot discussion topic at the moment. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I was going to go off about the multiple log ins, but when I really thought about it, I don't think it's actually against the rules. Or is it?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Trust me, its not against the rules, and while I can see getting a tad annoyed at it, its really not that bad.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
I just ignore it. If the grammar is good, I figured its Jon Boy. If its in someway self-referential, I figure its Pat. If its just plain weird, I figure its Morbo, sarcasticmuppet, RRR or all three. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Now THAT was funny!
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I agree with those who've said that everyone pines for the "good ol' days", and I agree that the forum is getting too big to know everyone as well as before.
But I think a big difference between now and the days we're pining for IS that we're getting bigger. We've developed a subculture of posters who come here for the sole reason of posting in the threads which have nothing to do with Books, Food, Film, or American Culture (for the most part--I concede that hugging is a part of American Culture, literally.)
While I'd much prefer if people would contribute a bit to the society as a whole, I guess this isn't a bad thing, necessarily.
I just wonder: Why? Why come to Hatrack just to post in the last post thread? I just looked over that thread and realized that there are no fewer than half-a-dozen people I've never seen before. All of whom have over 300 posts, and two who have over 1000! And while I'm still a bit of a newbie, I'm here as much as almost anyone.
Last post and word associations aren't Hatrack exclusives...why sit here and post to them when there are undoubtedly other forums out there at which they'd find dozens and dozens of other people who enjoy the same sort of posting that they do?
Then again, the more serious Hatrackers were probably wondering the same thing when I showed up.
Some are still wondering.
Anyway, I suppose we're all ignoring this topic and hoping it goes away...just had to voice my curiosity.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
That's right EG, msquared the assasin.
msquared
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I just wonder: Why? Why come to Hatrack just to post in the last post thread? I just looked over that thread and realized that there are no fewer than half-a-dozen people I've never seen before.
That's a fair question. Why post at Hatrack when there are similar threads elsewhere?
I hesitate to speak for others, but I can think of several possibilities. First, just because some of the last-post-thread and huggers primarily (or only) post there, does not mean that they only READ those threads. It is quite clear to me -- from posts in those threads, from IMs, etc. -- that some of them read many "serious" threads. They're simply uncomfortable posting in them. (Golly, I wonder why? Hatrack has only been loving, welcoming, and accepting toward them?)
Second, some of them came here because they like OSC. (Is there some requirement that all of his readers enjoy discussing "serious" issues? I think I missed that memo.) They simply gravitate to the threads that appeal to them, as we all do.
Third, a good number of them came here because they had friends (from RL or other online places) that told them it was a fun place to hang out. I just wonder WHY so many "oldbies" seem to find it necessary to beat that last attitude out of them.
If I had to guess, likely for most of the posters in question, it's a combination of reasons. Many of which I've likely not thought of.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
See, one of the things that really bugs me about smiley posters is their utter lack of respect for people who don't think smiles and ((hugs)) are funny or endearing. And yet you can count on someone posting a hug or a smile because they think they're funny or they're just being a git. It is, frankly, extremely annoying. And you wonder why people are getting frustrated? I'm sorry, but if you're going to intentionally aggravate me I'm going to feel no guilt for telling you to piss off and to get off my lawn.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
See, one of the things that really bugs me about smiley haters is their utter lack of respect for people who do think smilies and ((hugs)) are funny or endearing. And yet you can count on someone bashing hugs and smilies because they think they're cool or clever or just being a jerk. It is, frankly, extremely annoying. And you wonder why people are getting frustrated?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:I hesitate to speak for others, but I can think of several possibilities. First, just because some of the last-post-thread and huggers primarily (or only) post there, does not mean that they only READ those threads. It is quite clear to me -- from posts in those threads, from IMs, etc. -- that some of them read many "serious" threads. They're simply uncomfortable posting in them. (Golly, I wonder why? Hatrack has only been loving, welcoming, and accepting toward them?)
I agree that people enjoy reading the threads. We call them lurkers. I'm not sure that posting hugs or last posts is doing much to make many people more comfortable about posting. If anything, it makes people less likely to take them seriously when they do start posting in real threads.
quote:Third, a good number of them came here because they had friends (from RL or other online places) that told them it was a fun place to hang out.
Great. They're multiplying.
But seriously, I think the new batch is the only group to really do that sort of thing. I certainly don't know anyone here that I knew before I joined. Off the top of my head, I think Pat brought HDD, twinky brought BTL, and various people have brought their spouses...but I doubt they recruited them so they'd have someone to fool around with in the last post thread. I think inviting friends leads to the formation of cliques. While this is pretty much inevitable to some extent, I think (my opinion) that this should be a place where everybody can get to know everybody. A small town atmosphere in the vastness of cyberspace.
I mean, obviously nobody but the Cards has a say in what Hatrack will be, but there is probably a good majority here that agrees to a large extent on what it can be. Can you blame the people who spend a lot of time here for trying to make it into a place that it has the potential to become?
I mean, you know you guys are going to win every time...can't you just let us blow off steam? Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
Rivka
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So now I'm being classed as one of "you guys"?
quote: Can you blame the people who spend a lot of time here for trying to make it into a place that it has the potential to become?
Not at all. But as someone who also spends a lot of time here, can you blame me for wistfully wishing that the welcome mat weren't used quite so selectively? Not so long ago, I was one of these kids so many keep bashing. On some level I still am. And it hurts -- I really find it extremely painful -- to see them get pounded, over and over. To know that it hurts them too.
Especially when it's by people whose opinions I respect.
Aww, Eruve, love ya too.
[ November 25, 2003, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
We're very welcoming! Just maybe not to the people who sneak in without a saying word and start wrestling on our lawn.
A simple "Hi, I'm _______. I'll be over in the last post thread trying to reach 1000 posts by Tuesday so I can write a landmark post." would suffice. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't mind the wrestling on the lawn. It's all the smooching that gets to me.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Am I among the posters you percieve as being unwelcoming?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Well, that's inevitably what co-ed wrestling leads to.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
As long as it's mud-wrestling between two scantily-clad lasses, right Tom? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No way, Ic! After your recent posts supporting Eruve, I think I just may become your minion! Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:If Tom isn't funny, then neither am I.
And if Zalmoxis isn't funny, then neither am I!
[inner monologue] Yes! Now people will know for sure that I'm funny. They'll say, "But wait—Zal is funny, so I guess Jon Boy must be funny, too." Ha ha ha! I'm so brilliant. [/inner monologue]
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
I felt welcomed by certain people, but others have just been downright mean!
And Icky, you were very welcoming.
*thwacks TD*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: We're very welcoming! Just maybe not to . . .
As I said, selectively.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Next time I'm in L.A., I'm just gonna look you up in the phone book, go to your house, and plop down on the couch with a soda.
And I'm going to put my feet up on the table. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I would love if you'd visit.
Sitting on the sofa and putting your feet on the table is going to take gymnastic abilities though. And very long legs.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Oh, don't worry. I plan on rearranging the living room.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok, but I still won't own a table of a height to put your feet on comfortably. Unless you were planning on bringing one?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Thanks for the info. I'll pack a saw.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, yay!
While you're at it, my dining room table could really use some refinishing. Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Frisco, you're such a bastard. We should meet up somewhere and make some trouble.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
*blushes*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He botherin' you, honey?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
See, rivka's right. It can be hurtful to feel like you're not part of a community, if that community is one in which you wish to participate. So expressing opinions in a such a way as to cause such alienation is wrong. It's also ultimately destructive, because we do thrive on new additions.
Still, if you have a place in your life where you can go to be happy, and one day you realize that it doesn't make you happy anymore, it's not wrong to be sad or upset about it. And if it's not wrong to feel it, it shouldn't be wrong to say it. It is, perhaps unfortunately, inevitably useless to do so. Things are what they are, they will be what they will be.
------------------
Things are rather cliquish these days, though I suppose they always have been. When I first got here I was all starry-eyed at meeting the Hatrack Celebrities. Maybe the recent wave of newbies isn't like that (I don't know), or maybe I was just weird for being like that.
These days it almost seems like a Bad Thing in some crowds to have a low member number or a high post count. As if having one or both of those somehow means you'll be an elitist. But of course that's just as ridiculous as assuming that a person with the opposite traits will be worthless.
It's true that having a high post count or a low member number doesn't grant any real power. It doesn't even have any real causal relationship with a person's status in the community. But if this is a real community--and I think it is--it will happen that some people will be more influential than others. And, as in other communities, it works out that many, probably most, of those celebrities will be people who have been here a while, or have contributed a lot, or both. They have this influence because the rest of the community cares what they think and what they say. And it's not wrong for them to have it, since we give it to them freely. There's a reason that we venerate our Bob_Scopatzes, our Papa Mooses, our Anne Kates, and whether or not you like them, you can't really deny that they are important and influential members of the community. No, they're not better or more important as individuals than anyone else, but they do hold a special place in many of our hearts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Saxon, you are the only one to have five spontaneous tribute threads in one day created in your owner. You are DEFINTELY a Hatrack celebrity.
---
Yes, saxon and rivka are right. Everyone belongs, everyone is worthwhile, and if you need a clique, don't do it here. Hatrack is for acceptance. We need it, and it won't hurt you to give it.
If you need Hatrack to be only YOUR kind of place, give it up. Find a place in Real Life to be that. Hatrack's for everybody, in whatever way they need.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Hippie.
[edit: A: the clique I was referring to is the one including the fluffers one never sees outside two or three threads. there are very few others I see sticking to one group of people B: I wish there was a place in real life where I could get to see all of you...but there's not.]
[ November 25, 2003, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Me?????!???
I've never been called a hippie before in my life. Are you sure you mean me? *turns around to see who he's talking to*
[ November 25, 2003, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Yeah, ninja-hippie.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Everyone belongs, everyone is worthwhile, and if you need a clique, don't do it here. Hatrack is for acceptance. We need it, and it won't hurt you to give it.
Like, yeah man. Dude, did you just see that? My hand moved, but I didn't move it.
You're a hippie in Mormon's clothing. Embrace the Tie Dyed Side.
And I'd like to see these people try hugging random strangers in real life. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's the point! This ISN'T real life. It's... virtual. Practice? You can't randomly hug strangers, but for some people, on-line hugging and real-life helloing can take the same amount of courage.
There are some very, very real friends that I have made here. When I talk about the virtuality of it, I don't mean individual people; I mean Hatrack as a whole. I only believe in individual relationships for reality, but Hatrack as a whole exists. Whatever it is, it needs to be a loving, safe place.
*snort* hippie in Mormon clothing, for crying out loud.
[ November 25, 2003, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hatrack will never be safe as long as I'm around. . .
:brandishes tomotoes, which have been bought in spite of TomD's failure to send me $10.:
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*sings* Not while I'm around... Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
These are real people, and this isn't any dress rehearsal. There is no practice life.
[ November 25, 2003, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Wow, fifth page of bickering. Way to go, people.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Eh...we've done better.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Back off, Frisco. That's a whole different, private story, and it's nothing to do with you.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Sorry...low blow. I just really thought your post was ridiculous.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's why it's practice. Because I hope to high heaven you wouldn't be nearly that rude or hurtful in real life.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You'll notice, Scott, that I never said I'd send YOU ten dollars. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Actually, Tom, while you never said you'd give Scott ten dollars, you did say you'd give "you" ten bucks.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:There is no practice life.
Baloney. There most certainly is.
School is where you work in groups to learn how to create things in the work world as a team. People in English 101 aren't communicating for the ages, but they are learning skills to enable them to communicate. In families, there are relationsips between siblings and between parents that are models for how to conduct relationships as an adult. In business school, people work on case studies to give them the background to handle real-life business situations that depend on them having the skills in place before they are needed. Children play house in model of how to create a real home as an adult. Teenagers date in a limited fashion to learn how to do it well.
Don't knock play. Just because something is... practice, it doesn't mean it isn't important or real. You can learn to swim in other ways than simply throwing someone in the deep end of the pool and leaving them to drown as they may.
[ November 25, 2003, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Kat, had I had a similar reaction in real life, I would've responded similarly.
And then apologized, as I have.
Hatrack shouldn't be a place to say things you wouldn't say in the real world. I prefer honesty to niceties.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you had done that in real life, you'd still be incredibly rude.
Only you would be rude to someone you undoubtedly see more often. You'd be rude to a friend, or a co-worker, or a family member, or class member - someone you would continue to see, and someone who now looks at you as a person who is willing to hurt. Fortunately, it wasn't someone else - it was me, and you're just text.
If you get the urge to do that in real life, don't do it. It sucks, and it hurts.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
kat, there's a big difference (to my mind, anyway) between practicing skills--even practicing life skills--and a "practice life." In school you learn and practice skills that you will need in order to succeed in your profession and other aspects of your life. But the relationships that you form are real, the feelings that you feel and those that you engender in others are real, the impact you have on the lives of other people is real, and all of it counts, and none of it can be taken back or done over.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Kat, I'll never see how forums should be practice for life, and you won't budge, either.
And I need to get to bed.
Pretend I stopped after "Hippie."
But at least know that I'm not practicing. This is part of life. This is the real me.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:you're just text.
And, quite frankly, saying this to anyone is out of line, rude, and very hurtful, and I think quite beneath you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes. Which means excluding people in order to have a clique of your own is also real.
*shrug* He's not? Really? He's a friend? A real person who'd be willing to say that? Does that mean I need to be careful now, because I'll never know when funny Frisco will turn and bite?
[ November 25, 2003, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
It's easier to insult "text" than it is real people, isn't it? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, if you talk to me like that, you can't be a friend, because a friend wouldn't. What are you, then?
[ November 25, 2003, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Yes. Which means excluding people in order to have a clique of your own is also real.
I never said it wasn't. In fact, that's the entire basis of this thread: that the people on it are real and have real feelings and the things that we do here affect them in real ways. If the people here are just text, then we have no reason to care about their feelings, and so we have no reason to care if they feel welcome.
quote:*shrug* He's not? Really? He's a friend? A real person who'd be willing to say that? Does that mean I need to be careful now, because I'll never know when funny Frisco will turn and bite?
I don't honestly know how you feel about Frisco, but what you said is tantamount to claiming that he doesn't exist. I don't see how there can be any greater insult than to deny a person's existence.
Besides, you're being disingenuous. If Frisco is just text, then so are you. If you're just text then your feelings don't matter. But that's clearly not right. Besides, if Frisco's just text, then so are all of the rest of us. Then you have no real friendships here, no real relationships here. And that's not true either. And furthermore, if we're all just text, then we have no real effect on your emotions, and that's obviously not the case.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So the hurting bit is on purpose.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Well, maybe it hurts because the truth often does.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kayla, back off.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I don't know what Frisco's goal was, but it sure looks like you're doing it on purpose. If you really want to come off as the better person, that certainly isn't a good way to go about doing it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What are you talking about?
I'm not trying to come off as anything. I was sharing my thoughts on something on a mutual topic.
[ November 25, 2003, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I'm talking about you being dismissive of Frisco's existence as a real person. If that's not meant to be hurtful, then I'm genuinely incapable of understanding human expression.
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
quote: Really? I'll give you ten bucks if you can name one.
I would like to point out that this was directed at me and that I still have not recieved my ten dollars *cough tom cough* because if you will notice...
quote: Sorry to break the news to you Tom but in my short time here at the Forums you have not exactly come across as the winner of the nice guy of the year award. Maybe it's just me who has noticed this but sadly I doubt it.
I believe I have named somebody and well, doesn't that qualify as "one" that has been named?
Hmm... this thread has become some what angry. Maybe I should appologize for throwing out the "mean old timers" card. I seems that some feathers were ruffled. I was really just trying to say "Tom's a big stinky jerk!" and "let us play too!" with out getting all 3rd grade about it. It's interesting that Tom didn't take much offense to this.
*walking away thinking Tom's not as bad as I thought Yesterday. Hmph, who'd a thought it?*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Look, I know Frisco's a real person. Very much so.
But I wasn't expecting what he said. I felt blindsided, and I thought, "Why did that surprise me?" Because I don't know him. I don't know what he's like in conversation, I really don't know anything about him. I've never spoken to him outside of Hatrack - not in AIM, not in e-mail, definitely not in person. I don't know hardly anything about him.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Kayla, back off.
quote: Back off, Frisco.
quote:Hatrack is for acceptance.
quote: Whatever it is, it needs to be a loving, safe place.
What is your definition of loving, exactly?
quote: He's a friend? A real person who'd be willing to say that? Does that mean I need to be careful now, because I'll never know when funny Frisco will turn and bite?
Good thing this is just practice.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, Tom has a tendency to grow on ya. Scary, no?
<smilie omitted per terms of truce>
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
None of your business, Kayla.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: None of your business, Kayla.
Can you let me know what is my business? I want to make sure I'm posting in the right places.
[ November 25, 2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Not this.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Why not? Is this thread a private forum just for you?
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
quote: <smilie omitted per terms of truce>
ahh...that's no fun. Let me help ya out. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Besides, we all just practicing, right?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*lets Kayla play*
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
And, on top of it all, if you recall, I was in on all those e-mails. How can you send me all those and then say this isn't my business?
Maybe because Frisco said it first?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Still playing?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Look, I know Frisco's a real person. Very much so.
But I wasn't expecting what he said. I felt blindsided, and I thought, "Why did that surprise me?" Because I don't know him. I don't know what he's like in conversation, I really don't know anything about him. I've never spoken to him outside of Hatrack - not in AIM, not in e-mail, definitely not in person. I don't know hardly anything about him.
I know that you're upset. I missed Frisco's post before he edited it, but I suspect you have ample reason to be upset. It just seems hypocritical to say dismiss someone (and his feelings) as unimportant in the same thread that you are defending everyone's right to be included.
quote:None of your business, Kayla.
What's none of her business? The only question she asked is what your definition of loving is. That speaks to the very heart of what this thread is about, and since this thread is about the principles by which we all should guide ourselves in this forum, it's everyone's business.
Having said that, it's absolutely understandable that you'd be upset with Kayla. Kayla, snippy little one-liners benefit no one.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
So typical of you Kat. Make accusations and run away. No wonder you don't consider this real. You never face the consequences of you actions here.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Still playing, then.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
See Saxon? It doesn't matter anyway. She rips people apart because her feelings are hurt, then ignores anyone trying to point out the fact that she is hurting others, too.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kayla, I'm not discussing this with you. I don't know why you jumped in, but I don't want to discuss this with you. You're welcome to post to the board and to post all the theory you would like - although character assasination of me is unacceptable and in poor taste - but I won't let you pick a fight with me. I'm not discussing this with you.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Kayla, talking about people as though they aren't right there listening is certainly not the best way to get them to listen.
[ November 25, 2003, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Yes, but talking directly to her doesn't help either.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kayla, I am not discussing this with you. It doesn't help because I'm not discussing this with you.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Are you discussing it with me?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
What a shock. Should I pull up all the other threads where you refuse to discuss things? It's quite a pattern you've got going. Jump in, be rude, and then refuse to discuss it. It's amazing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
saxon75: *laugh* I don't know anymore. I thought I was discussing it with Frisco, but it looks like he wisely stepped out. Um yes, I think so.
[ November 25, 2003, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
beatnix, you don't win, because all you said in the quoted post was that Tom is a meanie. In your earlier post, you said:
quote: . . . I have noticed there are a number of "old timers" here who believe that their post counts makes them something special and that until you can match their count your opinion is not all that important.
Even if we grant that Tom is a meanie, you haven't demonstrated that he's snotty about his post count.
-o-
I'd hate to think that people start assuming that people with high post counts are automatically snobs. Or that every sharp rejoinder is motivated by a desire to keep out new people. It almost seems like that famous "reverse prejudice."
. . .
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Alright then.
I take it as a given, an absolute, that the people I communicate with on this board are real people with real feelings. I assume that anything I say will be received as it would be if I were saying it to the person's face. I know that not everyone will take it that way, but I figure that by assuming that they will, I ensure that I will be hurting the fewest people. Consequently, I try never to overstep my bounds with new people, or people with whom I am otherwise unfamiliar.
But, even more, I view this forum--or, more generally, the Internet--as the only way I have of communicating with some people who I care about, some real friends. Their lives and well-being affect mine, and I like to think that my life and well-being affects theirs. You know what? You're among those people. And I know that I am far from being alone in my view of this forum as a community. This thread alone is a testament to that.
So when I hear (or see, I suppose) you say that this is just practice, or that someone else (even someone with whom you are justifiably angry) is just text, I feel like our relationship is invalidated. If you feel that what happens on this forum is just practice for real life, then we must not really be friends, and you must not really care about me. And, if that weren't bad enough, it also makes me feel like you think the same thing about all of my other online relationships. And that's not alright with me.
If we're going to try to talk about how we should treat newcomers, we should not exclude old-timers. The comfort that we feel in our old relationships, be they friendly or adversarial, should not be a reason to treat these long-time acquaintences any worse than we treat new faces. If we are to have a vibrant, warm, real community, we all must at least be willing to admit that everyone is real and everyone has feelings, whether or not we care about those people or those feelings.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It's interesting that Tom didn't take much offense to this."
Well, no, I didn't. I contemplated writing a long response explaining WHY I didn't -- that you're either one of the People Who Stay or one of the People Who Go, and either way things will work out for the best -- but there's an even simpler reason: calling me MEAN is not likely to provoke me anymore.
Heck, I know for a fact I'm not even close to the meanest person on this forum, so it misses the mark by a wide margin, anyway. That aside, I've seen users question my parentage, call my wife ugly, compare my physical appearance to Jabba the Hutt, call me a "habitually lying weasel" because I used to work in journalism, and been accused of creating a cabal of toadies as part of a plan to rule Hatrack with an iron fist.
If I seem MEAN to you, I'm sure that's only because I am not NICE. I try to be kind, fair, honest, openminded and generous, but "nice" doesn't really fit. I'm not particularly gentle, either. But you'll never see me lord my user number or number of posts -- God forbid, given how arbitrary both those stats are, especially in a forum that's had as many incarnations as this one -- over anyone; if I strike you as being more than a little arrogant, if I seem to act as though I'm somehow "superior," I assure you it's only because I think I AM superior -- that, in fact, I try fairly hard to BE superior -- in ways that have nothing to do with post counts.
This is me being mildly funny again, by the way.
[ November 25, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Saxon:
*nods* Fair enough.
I do consider many people here to be friends, you and Juliette very much included. The ones that aren't, I simply don't know. I am more protective of new people because I figure the older ones can take care of themselves. I also have an impulsive mouth, and I am trying to fix that. I'm sorry. It is getting better; I'm trying. If you tell me nicely at the time, I'll fix it.
For me:
For whatever reason, I have a hard time being around people I can't trust absolutely. For some of my social groups, I love individual members, but the groups I continue in only because I should. I keep in touch with my family and refuse to write them off because I don't believe in doing that - despite things like my brother not inviting me to his wedding because he'd rather invite roommates, and my dad going to Disneyland with my stepmom for Thanksgiving because it's too much of a pain to cook dinner for everyone.
I keep going in my ward because I believe in it. I believe in community. I believe in human group interaction, and I believe it's a commandment to be there for one another. I believe I've made a promise to, and I believe that there is no such thing as a saint a vaccuum.
But it sucks. I hate it. It's hard for me to be around large groups of people that I don't know well. It always has been. It's hard for me to keep going when I don't know if I'll be blindsided. Maybe it's a crutch, but for me, some of Hatrack HAS to be practice - slightly less real - because if it weren't, there's no earthly way I'd stay. I don't have to be here, but I've done quite enough retreating in my life and I'm not doing it again.
[ November 25, 2003, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
I am seriously tempted to bring Rita in here and spank the living daylights out of anyone who dares post in this thread. Rita, however, is not judge and jury and I would never abuse her power in such a way.
-I-, on the other hand, can spank anyone I darn well please. I may not have an assortment of leather whips and sparkly sticks, but I am no small woman.
Just something to keep in mind the next time any of you are tempted to act like fething three year olds. Smilies don't ruin hatrack for me. Nonsense like this senseless bickering does.
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
Well. Better late than never.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
ladyday, I'm so confused. What's better late than never?
[ November 25, 2003, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I agree whole-heartedly with most of what Rivka has said in this thread.
EG, thanks. Like I'm not weird enough in my primary screen name.
quote:I mean, obviously nobody but the Cards has a say in what Hatrack will be, but there is probably a good majority here that agrees to a large extent on what it can be.
Frisco. Not to pick on you, but I think this opinion is wrong. The Cards can and do set the boundaries of Hatrack, in the service agreement or whatever it's called, in the interests of keeping the forum family-friendly. No cursing (freqently violated) and no ad hominim attacks (also violated by some) spring to mind.
Beyond those 2 rules, maybe a couple of others, the Cards seem to have a remarkably hands-off policy towards the forum. One reason I like it, I wouldn't be happy in a heavily moderated general-topic forum.
What the forum can be and will become is up to the to all the posters collectively, not the Cards. Provided they don't pull the plug, of course. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
kat,
Regarding your "impulsive mouth," if you'd just called him a butt or some such, I wouldn't have said anything.
As for the rest, well, I don't have a good response. I mean, I think that in a community of any size, if you have friends, you're not really on your own, as far as needing to keep your guard up. I was a bit wary at first, but these days I'm more relaxed because I feel security in my friendships. But you feel the way you feel, and I can't say that you shouldn't feel that way about groups. Not everyone is cut out for that sort of interaction.
Still, when you get to the personal level, a group is just a bunch of individuals, and you'll never have a relationship with the group, just with the people in it.
Heck, I don't know what I'm trying to say. I'll just quit rambling now.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Don't make me use the group hug emoticon.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
In any disagreement, people ultimately have to either seek common ground or accept that they will not convert everyone to their point of view, and move on. (Or seek only to try and understand opposing views, and not so much to change them.)
I think there are a lot of people in this thread looking for common ground, but I think there also several who have drawn their battle lines and are not even reading the posts they are responding to.
I guess I can't do anything about that.
For my own part, I don't want to be unwelcoming. I'm sorry if anybody has felt unwelome because of me. Consider the possibility that new members are not exclusive in their ability to feel shut out. Maybe a lot of people who have been here for a while feel like they are shut of the relationships between people who only post in two or three threads, but seem to know each other really well. Maybe some of the veterans of Hatrack feel threatened themselves. I'm sure these newer posters don't mean to make anybody feel excluded, much as I don't mean to make any newer members feel unwelcome. So maybe we need to look beyond our hurt feelings to achieve resolution here. We're all so busy saying how hurt or offended we are that we can't look for common ground.
I don't mean to insult anybody when I say that I also (personally) think that posts that consist of a half-dozen or more animated smilies and little else, last post threads, and role-playing in threads gets old for me quickly. We used to have last post threads come up every few months or so. Many of the stodgy old timers here participated. They would eventually die. That was the whole joke, really: to see when they would die and who was the last person to keep it going. In other words, somebody eventually won. I've posted in last post threads, and I've posted in role-playing threads, and I've posted a series of smilies in place of any message. I just wish there was more moderation in these things. Heck, maybe we "codgers" would participate if they were more in moderation . . . maybe some of us feel like unwelcome outsiders in those games.
But I'm not in charge. What I would prefer doesn't really matter. I recognize that.
I can stay out of the last post thread, unless I feel like being silly. I can stay out of the 8 smilies in every post thread, unless I feel like being silly. I can stay out of the hug thread, unless I feel like giving and receiving hugs.
For their part, the people who like all of the Silly (as opposed to the Funny ) should not turn more serious threads into smilie threads or RPG threads, but I don't really know that this has ever happened. 8-smilies in every post day, if it ever takes place, strikes me as a singularly bad idea. I think, for their part, people who like the Silly could refrain from responding to people who mention, without being insulting, that they don't like smilies by posting eight animated smilies immediately after. The "target" of this doesn't find it funny; he/she might well feel attacked instead. I understand your desire for revenge over feeling unwelcomed and unesteemed, but revenge never de-escalates anything. Tell you what . . . you don't turn the serious threads into smilie threads, and those of us who like serious threads won't come discuss abortion and homosexuality in the last post thread. Fair enough?
I think those of us who don't like the Silly are out of line in asking for it not to exist, or feeling like we can make any demands. Three or four silly threads (that are always at the top . . . never mind . . . ) on the front page doesn't seem like that high a price to pay for everybody to find what they like here. It's not that hard to look on page two for our threads.
But can we proselytize instead? Can we just tell you that last post threads are funnier when they're not around for a while? Can we just encourage you to say something, with words, instead of posting eight animated smilies? That we would love to have you playing with us instead of beside us? And then you can ignore us silly throwbacks with no hard feelings?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's it.
I swore I would never ever do this. But I just have to.
Ic, can I be your minion?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:never have a relationship with the group, just with the people in it.
Now, this I completely believe. That's what I meant - I can't remember what thread this was on - when I said I didn't believe in anything but individuals. That for all talks of Hatrack is this or that, there is no consensus of opinion. There is no "Hatrack thinks/is..." It's occasionally useful to use the labels, but the only people that matter are individuals.
Icarus: I sort of assume that old-timers can take care of themselves, and that it is the new people that are fragile, but maybe that's not right.
Jon Boy: *grin* There's no such thing as a group hug. Too bad; I do sort of feel like one now.
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
Kat, I was writing that post when everyone was snipping at each other. Just feel like a bit of a dork getting pissy with everyone for arguing when they aren't arguing so bad anymore.
On the other hand, I've been wanting to say something about the squabbling and exactly how much I hate it for a while now, so even if it's ill timed, better than biting my tongue yet again.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kat you're wrong, there is such a thing as a group hug and I've parcticipated in several. They are particularly common after winning team sporting events. AJ
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: In any disagreement, people ultimately have to either seek common ground or accept that they will not convert everyone to their point of view, and move on.
I agree, however, every time Caleb, or anyone for that matter, started a homosexuality thread, Kat parked herself there and spent a half a dozen pages refusing pleas for her to stop. She refuses to accept that we will never agree and just stay out of those threads. She has been the cause of more than one person to leave hatrack over just that behavior. And she refuses to discuss it!
So, because she refuses to "accept there is no common ground and move on" in homosexuality threads, and refuses to discuss things when other things happen like this thread, then I lose my temper and call her on it. Sorry if it makes hatrack uncomfortable, but she makes others outright miserable in the homosexuality threads and has been the cause of more than one person leaving hatrack. She says she's not retreating anymore, but refusal to discuss is retreating. And apparently, we are supposed to console her when her feelings are hurt, but when ours are hurt, not only does it seem she doesn't care, but she'll rub salt in the wound.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Kayla, did you see me console her or did you see me call her on behavior of which I disapproved?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
It's not what you did, but what she expects, saxon.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No Kayla, I refuse to discuss it with you.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Kayla, what do you hope to gain with this? I understand that you disapprove of the way kat conducts herself, but the conversation had just gotten back to civil tones. What's the point of what you're saying?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Sorry if it makes hatrack uncomfortable, but she makes others outright miserable...."
Would you people please -- PLEASE -- grow up? Or shut up?
Look, these are old wounds. And they're scabby and they're gross and, quite frankly, I'm sick of people picking at them for no good reason.
Stop behaving like petty children, will you?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Oh, right now, it's a toss up. Partly just to annoy her, just as she annoys some of us in homosexuality threads. And partly to call her on her behavior and make others aware of it. If we all didn't let her get away with it, maybe it would abate somewhat. And lastly, in the slight hope that some of might make her think.
quote: Everyone belongs, everyone is worthwhile, and if you need a clique, don't do it here.
quote:No Kayla, I refuse to discuss it with you.
Does this mean you discuss it with others? Will you discuss it with others? Let me know who. Frisco went to bed, not that you read the post where he said it, but if you want, I'll e-mail him my thoughts and see if he can't incorperate it into a response to you.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I just wanted to point out how this thread was resembling the star bellied sneetch story for a while, and then it became that scene fromm "Joe Vs. the volcano" where the supervisor is arguing on the phone with Harry.
And tom used a smiley. I did see that.
Anyway, Kat is in my clique. Come on, honey, let's ditch this joint and go shopping.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, let me be blunt about this:
Kayla, do you intend to harp on kat continually -- in completely unrelated threads -- about this issue, until she either breaks down or is driven from the forum?
If so, I will -- and I'm completely serious about this -- argue to Kathy that you and anyone else committed to the same goal should be immediately banned.
Your attitude -- "I know it hurts Hatrack, but I'm going to post like this partly just to annoy kat" -- is deplorable, and your crusade is both childish and tiresome.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:And partly to call her on her behavior and make others aware of it.
I think there are only five or six people still reading this, so I'm a little confused on the latter part of your goal.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Tom, have you ever argued to Kathy about her behavior? And, point in fact, it was brought up here, not by me, but by Frisco, who edited it. Not that it matters one way or another. She's driven Caleb and me from here anyway. We are both only still here till after the Thanksgiving get-together anyway. So, it is not a completly unrelated thread, as the topic was raised in this thread, and secondly, I don't do it in unrelated threads, but she has shown the same behavior in this thread as she has in homosexuality threads, and thirdly, why do you defend her when she does it to others?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have never complained to Kathy about her behavior because, quite frankly, I don't think kat is ever intentionally hurtful. She slaps BACK, but I think she's been misunderstood more than anything else -- and you guys just won't let it GO.
You're being ridiculously petty. The vast majority of Hatrackers -- INCLUDING kat, I'd imagine -- adore both you and Caleb. You KNOW I like both of you. If you can't live with the thought that there are people here who unapologetically disapprove of Caleb's lifestyle -- a disapproval you know I don't share, but a disapproval I recognize is rooted in their faith and therefore unlikely to change -- it's a shame, but it's no excuse to literally bully someone in every single thread.
Kat's made a number of mistakes on her own, mind you, but far more of them have come in response to some really vicious and unwarranted personal attacks. She's capable of saying things like "you're just text" which can easily be interpreted as being highly insulting, but I believe with all my heart that she doesn't mean them that way; I think, at worst, that she really IS practicing social skills.
Does anyone really think that kat's a bigot? Or that she's hateful or deceitful? If so, these people are completely and totally mistaken.
They're entitled to their opinion on the matter, of course -- but (in MY opinion) they are NOT entitled to drag her through the mud at every opportunity to "demonstrate" to the world just how "bad" a person she is.
As I said before, back when Caleb tried to recruit me for his Crusade: I want no part of this crap.
[ November 25, 2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: If you can't live with the thought that there are people here who unapologetically disapprove of Caleb's lifestyle -- a disapproval you know I don't share, but a disapproval I recognize is rooted in their faith and therefore unlikely to change -- it's a shame, but it's no excuse to literally bully someone in every single thread.
This completely misses the point. Not only do I not care about her opinion of Caleb's lifestyle, but I adore Patrick who has, pretty much, the same view as Kat. The problem I have is that she refuses to let it go and feels the need to come into every single homosexuality thread and tell everyone how wrong it is. We got it. We've asked her nicely to stop. She won't. And, as silly as it is, it does hurt Caleb and she just doesn't give a damn. If this were about a newbie who loves the color purple, which I personally hate, and she did the same thing, I would still be pissed at her. It's not her opinion that bothers me so much, it's her refusal to see that she is hurting others.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I'll be gone for a while, now.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
"The problem I have is that [Kayla] refuses to let it go and feels the need to come into every single [whatever] thread and tell everyone how wrong [Kat] is."
Kayla, your behavior is the same behavior that you're criticizing her for. If you need to take a break from Hatrack, that's fine, but in my opinion, it's a bad idea to leave for good because of hurt feelings.
In other words, if you leave, please come back.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm sorry for the "you're just text" comment. It wasn't meant as "you're just text, so you don't matter", but rather "this is real enough, and you're just text. Imagine if it was in real life in front of me."
I did not know it would be so offensive, and I did not mean to dismiss online relationships. I know they're real.
What I said:
quote:You'd be rude to a friend, or a co-worker, or a family member, or class member - someone you would continue to see, and someone who now looks at you as a person who is willing to hurt. Fortunately, it wasn't someone else - it was me, and you're just text.
*shakes head* Sorry if that was confusing. I meant it was a good thing he could be rude to me with fewer (but not zero) consequences than to someone in real life.
[ November 25, 2003, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Thank you, kat. I appreciate your clarification.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Would you people please -- PLEASE -- grow up? Or shut up?
quote: Your attitude -- "I know it hurts Hatrack, but I'm going to post like this partly just to annoy kat" -- is deplorable, and your crusade is both childish and tiresome.
You know, I don't think I've ever seen Tom nearly lose his temper on the forum.
Kayla might have a point, but I don't really know the context. I sometimes skip posts in homosexuality threads if they're not addressed to me or a specific person. So, I might have missed a few of Katharina's posts, but I read a lot of hers, and I have never found anything hurtful in them.
Kayla, if you're reading this, what things said in the homosexuality threads have hurt Caleb? Or even Caleb could answer that one. I'm honestly curious. I don't believe in hurting anyone, regardless of their private lifestyle.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Nick, I know you're curious, and your curiosity is an honest one, but I think publicly discussing it again will just open old wounds and drag us all through it again. It was a hard time and I don't think it's worth it to have to see so many bad feelings getting thrown around again.
If anyone does feel like having this conversation with Nick, I'd request that they move it to email, just in the interests of keeping the peace.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Okay, I understand.
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
Wow, things got ugly around here since I last checked. SO i'll happily stay away but first let me respond...
quote:beatnix, you don't win, because all you said in the quoted post was that Tom is a meanie.
I wasn't really trying to win. Just trying to point out that I'm kind of a dummy who shouldn't be taken too seriously. In a couple of thread Tom has kind of cheesed me off with some of his comments but all in all I really DON"T have a problem with him. I just saw a strong personality and well, saw an opening to stir things up. I obviously have not been around here very long and don't know a lot of the past wounds that shouldn't be uncovered again. It seems i stumbled into one here so like I said, I'll be staying away from this now. In the future feel free to tell me to shut up, it probably won't help but it definately won't hurt.
And just to get back on topic... Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Kayla, dude, you know how much I dig you, but I don't think acting like Katharine is the best way to behave in reaction to Katharine's own immorality.
For my part, I remain disgusted with her for her incessant lying. God knows I made a large enough fuss over it. But while I have yet to see what Eddie posted, it seems he was out of place posting it in the first place. You seem to have taken advantage of the opportunity, and wish to punish Katharine for past misdeeds by acting as irrationally and rude as she has in the past -- but I can't understand why you would.
You, unlike her and several other people on the board, hold my respect and attention. The reason why you do so is precisely your usually reasonable and dignified thinking. Katharina, based not only on recent threads, does not hold my respect, and I doubt she ever will again. If you want to be held in the same light as she is, by all means, continue your harassment -- but if only for my sake, let me continue my incessant respect for you and call off the war.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: You, unlike her and several other people on the board, hold my respect and attention.
If Katharina doesn't hold your attention, then why are you talking about her?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I find the personal insults upsetting. If you don't respect Kat, Lalo, keep it to yourself. I disagree with her on many things, too, but that doesn't mean she deserves no respect. Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Ela: Agreed.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
And by the way, Kat, I loved it when you said this:
quote:Yes, saxon and rivka are right. Everyone belongs, everyone is worthwhile, and if you need a clique, don't do it here. Hatrack is for acceptance. We need it, and it won't hurt you to give it.
If you need Hatrack to be only YOUR kind of place, give it up. Find a place in Real Life to be that. Hatrack's for everybody, in whatever way they need.
I think your heart's in the right place.
**Ela**
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
You miss the point, Ela. I haven't lost my respect for Katharina because I disagree with her -- if that were the case, I doubt I'd have respect for anyone at all. No. What I dislike about Katharina is her unbelievable tendency to lie and ignore all responsibility for her lies when people respond to them. Obviously, you missed the god-knows-how-many-pages thread in which Katharina insulted both Caleb and me, both with lies, then lied more to avoid responsibility for her actions. Then, a week after she ran away from an analysis of her lies I wasted a good hour or two of my life on, she started it up again.
No. Katharina doesn't deserve respect. But Kayla does, and I hope she'll continue in a manner that merits it.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I should mention, however, I have yet to see Katharina lie in this thread. A blessing.
I have to wonder what Frisco did, however. He's a good guy, and I doubt he'd ever post anything malicious. I wish he hadn't edited his post out of courtesy to Katharina, so I could better understand whatever it was he wrote.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Lalo, your posts are making me sad. I have seen the thread that you are referring to. I don't believe that Kat ever intentionally lied, though she did hurt some feelings by her tendency to skim posts instead of reading the whole thing.
It happened, it's done, let's put it in the past already. Are you going to berate her about it forever?
As I said above, the insults are making me sad.
::bows out::
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
DARN THIS THREAD!
You know, it started out being a good-natured discussion on non-political issues with everyone keeping their cool, contributing their ideas and being somewhat civil.
I was even starting to understand rivka again, and lighten up in my codgerness.
Then it turned nasty. Then it turned to arguments that happened WEEKS ago. And no one is budging.
Maybe the newbies who use smilies are on to something.
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
[rant] You know, I was pretty calm discussing this with people, but now they're just getting unneccisarily knitpicky, and cranky, and nasty, and...I'm starting to get kind of ticked off! I mean, just get over it, people! I'm now containing fluff to fluff-based threads only. If you don't want to see fluff, don't read those threads! If cheerful smileys make you upset, then that's your problem! Get over it! [/rant]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
And Scott, as an aside, I just want to point out that you totally rock.
quote:Hatrack will never be safe as long as I'm around. . .
:brandishes tomotoes, which have been bought in spite of TomD's failure to send me $10.:
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I should mention, however, I have yet to see Katharina lie in this thread."
Eddie, don't make me kick you. I shouldn't have to tell you -- YOU, of all people -- that misrepresenting or misunderstanding someone's argument is not the same thing as a lie, and I think it's intolerably underhanded of you to harp on these "lies" as if they were actually sins of some great magnitude, some enormous character flaw that precludes your ability to respect or empathize with her.
The fact is, Eds, you're trying to hurt somebody who never meant to hurt you, and you're kicking sand in her face every time you accuse her of "lying." Deliberately. Every time. You rip open a wound and pour vinegar in it and DARE her to respond.
I know this, because I've had it done to me. Remember Baldar?
If you really, sincerely, feel that kat somehow "lied" about, of all ridiculous and pathetic things to stretch the truth about, some positions and quotes on a DISCUSSION FORUM, let that color your opinion of her as much as you want; note, however, that I don't share your opinion. Either way, though, don't harp on it, not least because it makes you tiresome.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I never know what to say in threads like this-- other than we are acting precisely as a society does in real life.
Which does quite a bit to shatter the illusion of virtuality I've set up internally regarding Hatrack.
Because you all ARE virtual, for the most part, to me. Text with tone.
Hmmm.
EDIT: But I still care what the text reads.
[ November 25, 2003, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
...said the man who's pounced on Kayla for far less.
I'm afraid don't understand your insistence on defending poor suffering Katharine from charges of lying -- which I doubt you'll deny -- and still threaten an attempt to ban Kayla for harassment. Harassment which, while unjustified, was neither baseless nor false.
What's this about "trying to hurt someone who never meant to hurt [me]"? I wanted an apology weeks ago for lies she made, or at least some kind of acknowledgement of responsibility. While I'm over expecting that of her, there's no way I'm going to charge Kayla with harassment and pretend it was entirely without cause. Katharine has exasperated the hell out of many people with her constant avoidance of responsibility, and while I think it was petty of Kayla to bring it up here, it's not a shot in the dark.
Again, I'm not looking to attack Katharine for the hell of it -- if you'll notice, I asked Kayla to end it. But Kayla wasn't making up the charges she held against Katharine. And I'm not going to pretend she did -- to do so would only shame Kayla, who deserves shame far less than Katharina deserves acknowledgement of her moral failings. This isn't the right time or place, if there ever is a right time or place, but I'm not going to pretend Kayla's behavior was random and causeless.
Not even for you, sweetcheeks.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Email.
Check it out.
No one else wants to smell your dirty laundry.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Sent one before you asked, Scotty.
Ah can't make it go any fastah!
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Lalo, you're taking what you claim to be Katharina's "lies" a bit too far.
Maybe she did. If she did -- please note I did say if -- then the kind of backlash you're doing is like beating somebody to a pulp just because they bumped you on accident walking down the street.
In other words, you're over-dramatizing this -- possibly for your own benefit -- and it's getting to be rather disgusting. I don't know what happened between you and Katharina, but I do know that you are being a prick in the way you tell your side of what happened -- which saxon75 wisely tried to prevent peacefully, I might add.
[ November 25, 2003, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Ugh. Christ. I told myself I wouldn't get into this again...
Kayla, I'm going to leave it at a you're-unjustified-in-attacking-her-(though-not-without-reason)-and-please-end-it. It's not worth the hassle, Katharina's morality is nothing for me to fight about, and it lessens anyone to bring up her past actions, no matter how immoral. I don't think she was right in the past, but I don't think you're (nor I) doing any great service to the board by attacking her. In this thread, at least, she's not on the offense and doesn't deserve to be treated as such.
You know. Hate the sin, love the sinner. It's time we put it behind us.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Perfectly respectable position Lalo. Agreed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lalo, I wanted to send you an e-mail, but I don't have your address. I have nothing against you, and we've never had an issue other than the current controversy that was someone else's concern. If you have any concerns with me you would like to resolve, e-mail me. If your goal is to try to create a feeling of opposition against me - make me as miserable as possible, as publicly as possible - you are doing yourself a disservice. You are also being a jackass, and that should be uncomfortable because you are not one at heart. There are many causes in this world that deserve a well-meaning champion. Personal vendettas are not among them.
No, I never intentionally lied about anything. I can do nothing other than protest innocence. That protest can reassure those who looked for themselves (thank you) and saw no reason to believe I did, will change the minds of some not at all, and may convince only a few.
But I am both comforted and made wary by knowing that time generally sifts out the truth - that a person reveals himself and who he is by his own actions. I'm comforted by knowing I didn't lie, didn't do whatever it is I'm accused of, and I'm made wary because I know that secret weaknesses are scarcely as secret as one would like to think. That's almost okay - I still love Hatrack, and as a society, it's worth it to me despite the occasional unfortunate resemblance to the rest of humanity.
Ela: Thank you for that. I believe what I said - Hatrack was a safe place for me when I didn't have another one. I do skip some posts - every one that starts out nasty. That's also how I occasionally miss some information - I don't read things where someone is yelling at me. At all. Ever. The longer it is, the easier to skip.
---------
Maybe Lalo et. al. consider it acceptable to vituperatively accuse me of whatever it is - moral failings - because of my belief concerning the issue that touched everything off. My Opinion: You can take a stance on whatever you want, but you can't attack a person personally. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" means you protest against the action, not the person.
In other words, you can rail against the act of lying from here till Sunday, but do not diminish me or anyone else to the embodiment of a single trait. NO ONE, not a a single person, not a one is defined as a whole by a single trait or act. No one is solely smart, shy, cruel, impulsive, Mormon, or gay.
-------
Tom, I remember when Baldar was on. I think he did some serious, serious damage to the board that is still being felt. Threads like this are one of the results of threads of his. I do like everyone here, and that was the explanation I thought of that could explain everything.
Fights like this are like those in a family after some serious trauma. I'm sorry Baldar ever came here. He was this strong, smart, fascinating, cruel, cruel poster, and people are drawn to and imitate strength, even when that strength is evil and destructive. You bore the brunt of his, and it has to be because he saw your magnanimous Making as the greatest threat to himself.
[ November 26, 2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:No one is solely smart, shy, cruel, impulsive, Mormon, or gay.
Except celia. I hear that she alone is exclusively evil.
E-vil.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Except celia. I hear that she alone is exclusively evil.
Word.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yup.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
. . . and I'm not sure why, but I place the blame on mack.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
--I--
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Silly Scott. Celia is the source of all evil. She is the essence of evil. She is evil incarnate. You'd better give her proper credit lest you face her terrible wrath!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:You'd better give her proper credit lest you face her terrible wrath!
Yah, she'll make you fat. The horrors.
Hobbes Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Despite being utterly evil, I do not fear celia's wrath.
And I mean that.
[ November 27, 2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Probably not a bad idea Scott, because all though Celia claims to be evil, a far more defining feature is lazy, and you're a bit too far away from her to unleash wrath upon.
Hobbes Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
My feeling is that what Ela said is absolutely correct. Kat and I don't see eye to eye on most things but I would hope that she respects me as much as I respect her. I think Kat is a warm and wonderful person who also believes what she believes fervently and unashamedly. Sometimes believing like that can be hard for the believer and for others.
I try not to take peoples' views personally when they rest on that person's religious faith. It's hard, I know, to sit aside and say "Ok, you are strongly against something in a way that I find morally reprehensible even though you believe, wholly and fully that your views are moral and as mandated by your God." It's hard and it hurts but sometimes we all need to accept that sometimes peoples' beliefs aren't up for debate. And that's just the way it is.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Out of interest, has anyone expressed dislike for Katharina based on her political positions rather than her moral strengths?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Katharina, I've promised Tom I wouldn't go back to the thread in which you lied for the sake of argument -- and, as much as it pains me to retire from this as the evil bastard who mercilessly targetted poor victimized you, I'm sick of degrading myself to point out your avoidance of responsibility.
Sure, you didn't lie. You just invented positions and attacked people's characters -- then ran away when you discovered they were going to post. Sure, everyone's targetting poor victimized you because of your political positions -- not because you've lied about people then refused to answer any questions posed to you, be they about your lies or your positions. Sure, everyone's just out to make you miserable -- it's not like all anyone's been asking is for you to accept responsibility for the lies and infuriating dances around responses you take such delight in.
I hate leaving a fight in which I have morality, integrity, history, reason, and god on my side. I hate doing it even more when despite all the evidence against you, I still come out as the victimizing bastard who targets you for the sake of making poor suffering you miserable. I hate it all the more when you're still convinced -- or still try to convince others -- that you're just a wilting flower under attack by hostile sadistic forces of the universe, and still refuse to take responsibility for your own actions.
But, fock it. I'm done. If nothing else comes out of this, I'm glad I at least learned what to expect when dealing with you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What to say, what to say. . .
Lalo, I'll lay it out for you because you don't seem to get it: people look at Kat's posts. Then they look at your posts. They compare the two.
And you come out looking like a monkey throwing feces.
And Kat looks like a slightly teed-off zookeeper, who may be considering a job-change.
So knock it off, Donkey Kong.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
Lalo -- that was fricking brilliant.
Posted by MormonFunk (Member # 6002) on :
Yowser!
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Can we please just let this thread die?
Posted by MormonFunk (Member # 6002) on :
Sorry, new here. This will be my last post here. Just "shocked and appalled".
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
it can die now that i've said scott is wise beyond his years and hobbes didn't know my wrath yet when he posted that foolishness.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Let the death be brief yet fiery.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
*bump*
Oh, whoops. Accident.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Ralphie, you're a comedic genious, I hope you know that.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
What is Mormon Funk, anyway?
Is it the film that forms on top of the temple baptismal font after a long day of baptisms for the dead?
Or has George Clinton been converted recently?
And, geez, people...can't you just let this thread die?!
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
And people complain about the last post thread. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Let it DIE, Mrs. Lovett, let it DIE!
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Tristan - You're foreign and you think I'm funny.
There's just nothing wrong with that at all.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
I swore I wasn't going to do this, but at least I think saying these things would help others later on who are either feeling this way or who learn that they are causing others to feel this way.
Just so I can make it clearer for context, let me give the names I'm better known as around here: Leto, Leto II, GreNME, and to quite a few people, "that incredibly smug and rude jackass."
When I began posting here, I was timid, mostly because I did not understand how the interaction between posters worked. I actually read the forum for the whole summer before I actually first registered, so I did have a little background on the discussions. However, the only similar situation to this forum that I have had was the alt.fan.dune newsgroup on UseNet which, though Tom regularly loves to insult (I mean UseNet in general), still has a few gems that show Hatrack truly isn't the first online forum for a real "community" type of relating. In fact, I would say that alt.fan.dune was, at the time I posted there regularly, a place where there was a real sense of community. I still remember a few of those individuals, and check back periodically to see who is still around, as well as how they're doing. It's changed, though: more "frivolous" posting, a lot of infighting and some unnecessary bickering, and even the occasional spammers/trolls/whatever-you-call-those-multi-post-crappers who flooded the place with either porn, excessively graphic voilent threats, and so on. Hatrack has seen a few of those spammers, and some people love to (selectively) remember Baldar as the big, evil "Troll above all trolls." (Whether he was or not is really not up for debate: the general consensus is that he was just shy of being the AntiChrist, and I don't really care whether he was or not) For quite some time now—longer than many would admit, I bet—things have been getting less serious and more frivolous around here.
Through that time, I've become less timid, and have earned a reputation varying from person to person, ranging from impulsive and unthinking before I post all the way to intentionally berating and insulting anyone and everyone who does not totally agree with everything I ever have to say. Despite popular opinion, there have only been a handful of individuals (meaning less than five) who I actually personally disliked, or opposed on a personal level. Only a few, though, and I am even a bit embarrassed to admit that many. I'm not going to even bother getting into justifying any of it, because there is some that can't be justified, and some still that no matter the justification, it would still be unacceptable (either because it's me, or because they don't ever accept it). So, even I have been in the position where the "getting too personal" has gotten in the way of experiencing the good parts of the online community. It happens, life goes on, we move on... at least, we do in the ideal situation.
Of course, the ideal doesn't always happen.
I can name one instance where it didn't happen with me, but even in that case, I've come to the conclusion that they don't even realize what a bad person they really are (in my opinion, that is... I dislike them for reasons to do with ethics), and I'm not the best person to tell them otherwise anyway. With all of the other cases, once I got through the instance where I was personally angry or personally disliking them, it wasn't worth hanging on to. While I'm sure plenty of people will say "no, I never had that happen... I never got that bad," I have also been around here long enough to know otherwise. This thread is a fine example of people not letting things go, as well as letting other things make this an unpleasant place to be a part of for some people. Some of it has to do with the hierarchy of self-importance—despite what some may say they've seen, post counts and (more often) member numbers have played a role in claiming importance in contribution to the forum. Some of it has been because of catty arguments on hot-topic threads. Some of it has been because people just don't like how some people talk, and decide to assume the worst about them then hold a grudge over it.
It began to bother me quite some time ago, and I recall even making a thread about it: about the cliques, about the catty undertones, and about people letting their stupid grudges ruin an otherwise good forum. While there was plenty of discussion within the thread, I doubted much changed. I still don't. My own personal experience with those with grudges has had me stop posting a few times, with one of those times resulting in even having to deal with those grudges causing Kathryn (the moderator) to delete a thread all based on the incorrect assumptions of those who were clinging to those grudges. Also because of that incident, I was told that my protestations did not matter in the case (by Kathryn), because those who were complaining had already complained, and it was dealt with. Basically, I was told my opinion on the matter was irrelevant. I was insulted. Later, there was an incident where something I said was taken completely out of context, because I said it, and no matter how I protested, I was immediately assumed to be trolling for a fight. Compounding the incident was that the person I allegedly insulted had a grudge against me, and even admitted as much. Yet, even as I held my claim that I wasn't trying to start a fight, I was cursed at and insulted (<hyperbole>which is apparently only against the rules when it's not me being treated so </hyperbole>), and told that I was a liar. I may be rough when speaking to people sometimes, and I am definitely aggressive, but one thing I am not is a liar. After a conversation with someone about how what I said was taken out of line, I conceded that the single sentence could have been taken as offensive (when picturing a smug, arrogant jackass saying it with a half-grin), I made my last post as "Leto II" an apology for having offended. Then, I promptly requested that Kathryn delete the account, as well as "LetoII," "GreNME," and a few others.
Neither of those instances are indicative of what goes on daily here, nor what happens in every thread. However, it has happened to more people than just me. Sure, the details aren't the same, and not everything that happened to me happened to them, but the end result is the same: people are pushed away because of behavior that estranges them from the feeling of community that was here when they began posting.
And this is where I begin to get to the point (sorry for having taken so long).
Remember this when you bash another forum, whether it be Ornery, PWeb, or some non-OSC-related forum. Remember that this forum is not without its failures in the ethical treatment of others, and that people are pushed away, sometimes unfairly (and I don't just mean the n00bs). Remember that even though the general environment here is not as volatile or as prone to flame-fests as some internet forums are, all of those same temptations are present, and people still sometimes fall for them. Remember that while holding the opinion that Hatrack is full of intelligent and friendly and thoughtful people is good, holding the opinion that Hatrack is more intelligent and more friendly and more thoughtful than any other place on the internet is snobbery in the utmost, especially when being so snobbish towards Ornery and PWeb.
I don't think Hatrack is going to pot, I don't think that this is some lasting legacy of Baldar, and I don't think that emoticons are ruining the forum. I also don't think I am welcome enough to participate, except under conditions that I behave in a manner that this thread shows others cannot even behave in. I say what I feel, when I feel it, and I will even adjust what I say later if that changes. I'm straight-forward, but I'm also aggressive. I come off as combatitive, and I don't say anything when typing that I wouldn't say in person, as anyone who has met me can attest to. I feel that there is definitely a difference to hearing me say it in person as opposed to typing it in a post, and while I've made some adjustments, the plain truth is that I type how I speak. I'm not trying to wow anyone with a fabulous vocabulary or references to all of the intellectual pieces of art and literature I can think of, and I don't feel an overwhelming need to personalize every issue I debate. If you can change my mind on something, good for you, but if not, don't expect me to just "agree to disagree" with you. If you find that offensive, then I'm sorry, but it's really nothing personal. Regardless, you don't have to worry about that any more, because you don't have to argue with me about it.
This isn't some stupid "goodbye" post, either—those of you who want to get hold of me for anything can easily do so the way you always have: e-mail or IM. I even have a small forum that I usually use either to host mafia or some other sundry small tasks, and you can always private message me there. I'm not disappearing, but I'm not playing the game of "try to make Leto less mean" here any more. I'm not even blaming Hatrack for this, because I'm sure a good portion of it is because I still feel insulted, both from being called a liar and from being told my opinion doesn't matter. I'll get over it. I just wanted to put this somewhere appropriate, and here in this thread—where it's obvious that there are some grudges working in many directions, from more than one person—seemed the best place because it's a good show of how these things can get out of hand. It's not even the worst I've seen. However, it's a good reminder that while some here may like to opine that Hatrack is oh-so-much-better than Ornery or PWeb, the same things happen here.
If you don't have my IM or don't see me on it, it's probably because I don't have you on my list. That's okay, because the old e-mail works just fine, as does the private messaging system on my site (though the former is preferred). I haven't decided whether I'll ask for this to be deleted or not, but if it ends up not logging on after this, I won't protest nor be surprised. Oh, and [completely-off-topic] treat Starla* well, because she's a friend and someone I know personally.[/completely-off-topic] Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I didn't think you'd registered "that incredibly smug and rude jackass" yet . . .
Leto, you know most of us rather like you. Good post.
Honestly, I don't think you're mean either, and that has never been my supposition. Godspeed, and if I'm ever fabulously wealthy look for a powerbook in the mail.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I like John. But I ALSO think he's mean. The two aren't necessarily exclusive. (It's for this reason that the appearance of a John L. on Ornery made my heart skip a half a beat or so; I've missed Leto a bit. Unfortunately, that John L. doesn't appear to be nearly as interesting as this John L., so my excitement was short-lived.)
Still, I hope this doesn't mean Leto won't let those of us who still like him continue trying to get Kama to the States. *grin*
[ December 07, 2003, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
These are the Days of Our Lives.
Posted by Leto ll (Member # 3914) on :
Heh, so you deleted Leto ii? Does that make me the real one?
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:""If you are like most people, you devote considerably more energy to what you say rather than how you say it. But, do you realize that when you talk to someone, an astonishing 90% of the message one receives is from your body language, or nonverbal communication? Only 10% of the message they receive is from your words.
This means that 90% of what you communicate is derived from what you do rather than what you say...the gestures you use...what facial expressions you use...how you move your body...how you use silence...how you use the space around you...and any other behavior from which others can derive meaning".
- Body Speak
This is certainly true of John. Before I met him, I too thought he was a meany. After I met him, I went back and read the same posts that had "offended" me and laughed or understood his message.
John's body language and tones are welcoming rather than combative. His words will say that you have just broached a concept that is completely against his every experience, but the body language says "I value you, so I'm willing to let you convince me".
A tough concept to get across in words alone.
I've always thought of John as the kid in the parade who shouts out, "Look, the Emperor has no clothes!"
He measures everything against what his personal experience has proven. He doesn't measure the message by the messenger; nor will he toss out the messenger of a false message if the message is honestly delivered.
And as long as I'm mentioning strong points; I must say how impressed I've been with how John has successfully endured a tremendous amount of physical and mental pain the last couple of years with a minimal amount of whining or self-aggrandizement.
I'm very protective of my son and he's a tough judge of character. But John became an immediate and positive fixture in both our hearts.
So John, you matter and your opinion matters to me because it is fresh and unique and rarely holds an ulterior motive.
Please stay in touch.
[ December 07, 2003, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Plus, yeah, John has buns of steel TO THE EXTREME!
He's a keeper.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote:Still, I hope this doesn't mean Leto won't let those of us who still like him continue trying to get Kama to the States.
If he did, he'd have to deal with my sword Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Mine had better be the only sword he wants.
Besides, if it's your sword he wants, then there's more to you than anybody suspects, Kama.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Sick, sick Frisco
And the point is to not want my sword, anyway
[ December 08, 2003, 03:21 AM: Message edited by: Kama ]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But I like the Satan guy...![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
." Are you?
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
and a big hug ![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
to all those people who have made this a place where people dare to share their emotions as well as their opinions without fear of being stomped on. That's the kind of place that makes me way happy ![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
]![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
" or something. Now, that can be (and often is) followed up by fifteen different variations on the same theme involving various (all and sundry) new smilies. It encourages people to just click the smilie they want a few times rather than respond carefully to posts.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Aww, Eruve, love ya too.